Mucy v. Nagy
| Decision Date | 30 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-1950 |
| Parties | MICHAEL MUCY, Plaintiff, v. TROOPER RICHARD NAGY and TROOPER ZACHARY WEBB, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Plaintiff Michael Mucy (“Mucy”) brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Richard Nagy (“Nagy”) and Zachary Webb (“Webb”), both of whom were troopers with the Pennsylvania State Police. His claims arise out of an incident in which Defendants searched and seized his vehicle as well as two firearms and ammunition found inside, after he refused to return to a Walmart parking lot where he had left his vehicle after an accident. Mucy further alleges that Defendants improperly issued citations to him for six summary offenses and made false statements to local officials, who then suspended him from his position as an elected constable of Redstone Township. He contends that these actions violated his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. He also asserts a state law claim for malicious prosecution.
Presenting pending before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment. Defendants move for summary judgment with respect to the First and Fifth Amendment retaliation claims in Count I and the malicious prosecution claim in Count VII. Mucy moves for summary judgment with respect to his Fourth Amendment claim relating to the search of his vehicle and the seizure of his vehicle, the firearms and ammunition as set forth in Count VI. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion will be granted in part and denied in part and Mucy's motion will be granted.[1]
Mucy commenced this action in December 2020. After Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, he filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14). In addition to the claim of retaliation for the exercise of First and Fifth Amendment rights (Count I), the Amended Complaint also asserted federal claims of unlawful arrest (Count II), malicious prosecution (Count III), reckless investigation (Count IV), stigma-plus due process violation (Count V) and unlawful search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Count VI), as well as a state law claim of malicious prosecution (Count VII). Federal question jurisdiction is based on the civil rights claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction is asserted over the state law claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) the Amended Complaint. On August 3, 2021, a Memorandum Opinion and Order were filed (ECF Nos. 21, 22) which granted the motion in part and denied it in part. As a result, the remaining claims are as follows: retaliation in violation of Mucy's rights under the First and Fifth Amendments (Count I), improper searches and seizures in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment (Count VI) and malicious prosecution (Count VII).[2]
Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment with respect to Counts I and VII (ECF No. 35) has been fully briefed (ECF Nos. 36, 48) as has Mucy's motion for partial summary judgment with respect to Count VI (ECF Nos. 39, 40, 46).
In the late evening hours on December 20, 2018, Mucy was returning to his home in Republic, Fayette County, Pennsylvania from his grandmother's residence in Charleroi, Washington County. He was driving a 2012 Dodge Charger and was traveling alone. (Plaintiff's Concise Statement of Material Facts (“PCSMF”) ¶¶ 1-2, 7) (ECF No. 41); (Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts (“PRDSMF”) ¶ 14) (ECF No. 49).
Mucy was an elected constable of Redstone Township and as part of his official duties, had in his vehicle two firearms, ammunition, a duty belt and a badge. (PCSMF ¶ 16; Defendants' Concise Statement of Material Facts (“DCSMF”) ¶¶ 5, 13 (ECF No. 37)).
That evening, the road conditions were wet and slippery due to rain. While Mucy was traveling on Route 40 in Washington County in his car, it came into contact with water on the roadway and hydroplaned. His vehicle left Route 40, traveled up an embankment, and then came back onto Route 40. When it came to rest, it was facing the wrong direction in the opposite lane of travel. No one was harmed and there were no other vehicles involved. Other than Mucy's car and grass on the embankment, no property damage was caused by the accident. (PCSMF ¶¶ 310.)
Mucy claims that his vehicle was still operable and describes the damage, which included a fender that was bent and loose and the discharge of the airbag, as minor. No windows were broken and the door locking mechanism worked. According to Mucy, the car was driving and riding fine. (Id. ¶ 11; PRDSMF ¶ 6.)
Defendants dispute these facts. Nagy observed the driver's side fender hanging off of the vehicle and a bent right rear wheel or axle. He described that the car was “not roadworthy.” Webb concluded that it was not safe to operate the vehicle and believed it was a “reportable crash, which would have been required to notify police that the crash had taken place.” (DCSMF ¶ 6; Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts (“DRPSMF”) ¶ 11.) (ECF No. 45.)
Immediately after the incident, Mucy drove his car to parking lot of the Brownsville Walmart, which was a few hundred yards away. Although he asserts that the vehicle was operable, he decided to call a tow truck to have the vehicle towed rather than drive it further that night because it was the middle of the night and raining heavily. Before leaving Walmart, he made arrangements with Van Divner Towing to tow the vehicle and lock it inside their facility because his personal possessions, including two guns, ammunition, magazine, duty belt, handcuffs, shackles, paperwork and laptops, were inside. Mucy advised Walmart management of the situation and that he had made arrangements to have the vehicle towed. (PCSMF ¶¶ 12-17; DCSMF ¶ 7.)
Mucy got a ride home from a friend and a tow truck driver later arrived at the Walmart. (PCSMF ¶¶ 15, 19, 21.) At approximately 11:43 p.m. Nagy and Webb responded to the scene of what was characterized as a single vehicle accident. They noted that a 2012 white Dodge Charger had been moved to a nearby Walmart parking lot in Washington County on U.S. 40. By the time they arrived, the driver had left the scene. (DCSMF ¶¶ 1-2, 4.) The tow truck driver was already there. (PCSMF ¶ 21.)
At approximately 11:50 p.m., Webb contacted Mucy by phone. Mucy identified himself as the driver of the white Dodge Charger. (DCSMF ¶¶ 8-9.) Mucy claims that Webb demanded that he return to the scene (PCSMF ¶ 19), although Webb does not remember using the word “demand.” (DRPSMF ¶ 19). The parties agree, however, that Mucy stated during this phone call that he could not return to the scene of the accident that night. (DCSMF ¶ 10; PCSMF ¶ 20.)
At the direction of Nagy and Webb, the tow truck driver opened the vehicle using the key fob he had obtained from Mucy. (PRDSMF ¶ 11.)[3] Nagy states that he entered the vehicle in order to find paperwork confirming the vehicle's registration and Mucy's proof of insurance. Defendants contend that they first searched the glove compartment for his insurance information. When they found a firearm, they expanded their search to the entire vehicle as an “inventory search” for the purpose of safekeeping the firearms. (DRPSMF ¶ 22.) Two firearms, ammunition, and various other items, including a duty belt with a badge, were found in the vehicle. (DCSMF ¶¶ 12-13.) While Webb testified that he was one who entered the vehicle, Mucy contends that both Nagy and Webb conducted the search. (PRDSMF ¶¶ 12-13.) It is undisputed that they did not have a search warrant. (PCSMF ¶ 23; DRPCSMF ¶ 23.)
During this search, Defendants seized his two firearms and magazines. They had no reason to believe that he was illegally in possession of the firearms. (PCSMF ¶¶ 22-25.)
Defendants claim that they were unable to return Mucy's firearms to him that night because they had to respond to a priority call they had received while at the Walmart regarding a suicidal female. (DCSMF ¶ 14.) Mucy suggested that the police could stop by his house that evening because they would be driving past it, but they declined his offer. (PRDSMF ¶ 14.) Because his firearms, a .357 caliber Glock 32 semi-automatic pistol and a .380 caliber Kel-Tec semi-automatic pistol, were not returned to or retrieved by Mucy that night, they were entered into Pennsylvania State Police evidence on December 21, 2018 at approximately 3:30 a.m. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16.) There is no record indicating why they were entered into evidence. (Id. ¶ 15.) As reflected in the property record, Defendants also seized Mucy's ammunition. (ECF No. 38 Ex. B.)
According to Mucy, Defendants seized his vehicle and its contents by instructing the tow truck driver to impound the vehicle with a hold. (PCSMF ¶ 26.)[4] Defendants assert that they had the vehicle impounded in order to complete their investigation of the accident. (DRPSMF ¶ 26.)
Nagy spoke with Mucy by telephone on December 21, 2018 to confirm Mucy's account of the accident. (DCSMF ¶ 17.) The next day, Nagy filed the following summary citations against Mucy:
(DCSMF ¶ 18; PCSMF ¶ 29.)
On December 26, 2018, Mucy was suspended from his position as a constable...
To continue reading
Request your trial