Morency v. City of Allentown, 5:19-cv-5304

• Decision Date: 02 October 2020
• Docket Number: No. 5:19-cv-5304,5:19-cv-5304
• Parties: MICHAEL RAYMOND MORENCY and ROEUTH MORENCY, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ALLENTOWN, ALLENTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF OF POLICE TONY ALSLEBEN, OFFICER DIEHL, SERGEANT FLORES, and OFFICER BLOOD, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

MICHAEL RAYMOND MORENCY and ROEUTH MORENCY, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ALLENTOWN, ALLENTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT,CHIEF OF POLICE TONY ALSLEBEN, OFFICER DIEHL,SERGEANT FLORES, and OFFICER BLOOD, Defendants.

No. 5:19-cv-5304

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

October 2, 2020

OPINION

Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 50—DENIED

Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 51 & 53—GRANTED

Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This action was commenced by husband and wife Plaintiffs, Michael Raymond Morency¹ and Roeuth Morency (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), against the City of Allentown, Pennsylvania ("the City"), the Allentown Police Department, and several of its police officers (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs allege myriad civil rights violations stemming from the arrest and prosecution of Michael Morency for simple assault and disorderly conduct, charges which were subsequently dropped. In previously ruling on Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court permitted Plaintiffs to replead a majority of their nonviable claims. SeeECF Nos. 30-31; Morency v. City of Allentown, No. 5:19-CV-5304, 2020 WL 1935640 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2020). Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). Discovery has since concluded,² and both Plaintiffs and Defendants have cross-filed motions for summary judgment.³ For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied, and Defendants' motions for summary judgment are granted.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Undisputed Material Facts

At the outset, the Court observes that Plaintiffs have failed to file either a statement of undisputed material facts or a response to Defendants' statements of undisputed material facts. They have also failed as a general matter to support their motion with facts that are supported by citations to the record. While the Court discusses the consequences of these deficiencies in detail further below, at the moment it is necessary to note that the undisputed material facts recited here are drawn—as they must be—exclusively from the Defendants' statements of undisputed material facts.⁴

On June 14, 2018, Michael Morency was smoking a cigarette on the front porch of his home in Allentown, Pennsylvania, when he observed two boys playing soccer across from hisyard. Defendant Officer Diehl's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("Diehl SOMF") [ECF No. 54] ¶ 3. One of the boys was Plaintiffs' next-door neighbor, while the other boy, the son of Plaintiffs' neighbor Hector Sanchez, lived down the street from Plaintiffs. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. Morency observed that the soccer ball the boys were playing with repeatedly hit Plaintiffs' vehicle, which was parked on their property. Id. ¶ 3. Morency reacted to this by advising the two boys to go elsewhere and to stay off Plaintiffs' property. Id. ¶ 7. In response, the boys gave Morency "lip" and kicked the soccer ball at Plaintiffs' vehicle one final time, which caused the ball to land in a hedge in front of Plaintiffs' porch. Id. ¶ 8. Morency then jumped off his porch and went to retrieve the ball at the same time as Hector Sanchez's son. Id. ¶ 9. As a result, a collision, the exact nature of which is unclear, occurred between Morency and the boy—Hector Sanchez's son claimed Morency pushed him to the ground twice while he was retrieving the ball; Morency claims the collision was inadvertent. See id. ¶¶ 10-11. Either way, Hector Sanchez's son fell to the ground as a result.⁵ Id. ¶ 12.

Being significantly upset by the incident, the younger Sanchez returned home to tell his father what had happened. Diehl SOMF ¶¶ 13-14. Hector Sanchez then decided to confront Morency about the incident. Id. ¶ 15. He walked over to Plaintiffs' property, where Morency was still present on his porch. Id. ¶ 16. Several neighborhood children were also present in the vicinity. Id. ¶ 17. Hector Sanchez proceeded to tell Morency that he should never place his hands on someone else's child. Id. ¶ 18. Although the exact tenor of the exchange between Hector Sanchez and Morency is not clear—Morency claims Hector Sanchez was walking towards him and yelling in a threatening manner; Hector Sanchez stated he stayed on thesidewalk and/or Plaintiffs' small front yard—it is undisputed that during the exchange, Morency removed a firearm from his pocket in a "defensive draw," whereby he held the firearm near his waste, bladed slightly towards Sanchez. Id. ¶¶ 20-27. He then told Hector Sanchez to leave his property. City Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("City SOMF") [ECF No. 52] ¶ 15. Seeing the firearm, Hector Sanchez told Morency he did not want any problems and left the scene, taking the children that were present with him. Id. ¶ 16.

Mr. Sanchez subsequently called 911 to report the incident. Diehl SOMF ¶ 31. Allentown Police Officers Eric Blood and Matthew Diehl responded to the call.⁶ Id. ¶ 32. As part of their investigation, Officers Blood and Diehl spoke with Hector Sanchez and his son about the incident. Id. ¶ 33. The Sanchezes told Blood and Diehl that Morency had pushed the younger Sanchez to the ground and then drew a firearm when Hector Sanchez attempted to confront him about it. Id. ¶ 34. Hector Sanchez was able to describe the firearm Morency displayed to him as a small silver/chrome revolver. Id. ¶ 36. Officer Diehl also observed a scrape on the younger Sanchez in connection with the incident. Id. ¶ 35.

As part of the investigation, a firearm registry search was performed, which confirmed that Michael Morency had purchased a .38 caliber revolver.⁷ Diehl SOMF ¶ 37. Also as part of the investigation, Diehl asked some of the children who were outside during the incident what type of car was driven by the man who had displayed the firearm; the children identified a black Nissan, which Diehl and Blood confirmed was registered to Michael Morency. See id. ¶ 39.

Officers Diehl and Blood also went to Plaintiffs' home to speak with Morency about the incident. Diehl SOMF ¶ 40. They asked Morency to come outside his home with his hands up, however, Morency told the officers from within his home to leave and shut and locked his door. City SOMF ¶¶ 19-20. Diehl and Blood continued their investigation by obtaining a victim statement from Hector Sanchez. Id. ¶ 21.

After preparing a written report concerning the day's events, Officer Blood called Assistant District Attorney ("ADA") Diane Markovits to approve criminal charges against Morency. Diehl SOMF ¶ 43. The ADA approved the filing of two counts of simple assault and one count of disorderly conduct. Id. ¶ 44. Blood completed an arrest warrant application and an affidavit of probable cause in support of the charges before the end of his shift on June 14, 2018. Id. ¶ 45. The affidavit of probable cause was presented to Magisterial District Judge Patricia M. Engler the following day, June 15, 2018. Id. ¶ 46. That day, Officer Blood went to court and swore out the affidavit of probable cause for the arrest warrant. Id. ¶¶ 30-31.

Around the same time on June 15, 2018 that Officer Blood was at the courthouse, Allentown Police Officer Sergeant Flores, who had been made known of the previous day's incident from Officer Diehl and Blood's recounting at the morning "roll call,"⁸ went to Plaintiffs' residence to run surveillance. City SOMF ¶¶ 27-28, 32. During Sergeant Flores's surveillance, Morency exited his home and got into his car. Id. ¶ 33. Shortly thereafter, Flores conducted what he termed a "traffic stop" in anticipation of the warrant that was about to issue. Id. In particular, he advised Morency that he was being detained in connection with the previous day's incidents, and a warrant was about to issue for his arrest. Id. ¶ 34. Approximately sevenminutes after the initial stop, an arrest warrant issued and Morency was taken into custody.⁹ Id. ¶ 35. Following Morency's arrest, Judge Engler entered an Order imposing certain bail release conditions, including prohibiting Morency from residing at his home with his family, prohibiting Morency from having any contact with victims or witnesses, mandating that Morency reside in a gun free home, and prohibiting his possession of any firearms during the pendency of his case. Diehl SOMF ¶ 51.

Although neither Officers Diehl nor Blood had any input into the bail conditions set by Judge Engler, the Judge did request that these officers help facilitate the removal of firearms from Plaintiffs' residence so that Morency could eventually reside at home. Diehl SOMF ¶¶ 52-53. In response to this request, Officer Diehl asked the District Attorney's Office whether he and Officer Blood could go to Plaintiffs' home to advise Roeuth Morency that any firearms needed to be removed from the home. Id. ¶ 54. The District Attorney's Office advised Diehl that if an adult occupant of Plaintiffs' home was present and provided consent to the officers, they could enter the home, locate any firearms, and discuss having them removed. Id. ¶ 55.

Accordingly, the same day, June 15, 2018, Officers Diehl and Blood went to Plaintiffs' home and made contact with Roeuth Morency. Diehl SOMF ¶ 56. The officers advised Mrs. Morency that they were at her home to locate her husband's firearms because, under his bail conditions, he could not return home until any firearms had been removed. Id. ¶ 57. After the officers asked permission, Mrs. Morency verbally consented to their entry for purpose of locating her husband's firearms. Id. ¶¶ 58-59. She directed the officers to a firearm on the kitchen table, and the officers located a second firearm in the basement. Id. ¶¶ 59-61. Theofficers informed Mrs. Morency that the firearms needed to be removed from the home, and subsequently left. Id. ¶¶ 62-63. Officers Diehl and Blood deny taking any items from Plaintiffs' home, and Mrs. Morency does not recall seeing the officers take anything from the home.¹⁰ Id. ¶¶ 65-66....