Otto v. Williams
| Decision Date | 06 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 15-3217 |
| Parties | ROBERT G. OTTO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. R. SETH WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs are Philadelphia Narcotics Officers, charged in this Court with a years-long conspiracy to rob and extort money from suspected drug-dealers and others. While the charges were pending, Plaintiffs were transferred and then fired. After a seven-week trial, however, Plaintiffs were acquitted and, through labor arbitration, reinstated with back pay and cleared personnel records. Unsatisfied with this relief, Plaintiffs have sued the City of Philadelphia, its District Attorney and District Attorney's Office, as well as its former Mayor and Police Commissioner. The gravamen of their Complaint—their acquittals and reinstatements notwithstanding—is that they were denied due process. In response to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, Plaintiffs seek to withdraw almost all their claims—some with prejudice; some without. I will dismiss all claims with prejudice. It is evident that Plaintiffs' Complaint (which reads more like a press release than a pleading), has no basis in law.
Plaintiffs are Narcotics Officers Robert G. Otto, Michael Spicer, Brian Reynolds, Perry Betts, John Speiser, Thomas Liciardello, and Linwood Norman. In July 2014, the grand jury charged six of the seven Officers with RICO conspiracy, conspiracy to deprive civil rights, deprivation of civil rights, robbery, extortion, carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, possession with intent to distribute over 500 grams of cocaine, falsification of records in a federal investigation, and aiding and abetting. (Doc. No. 1 in Crim. No. 14-412); 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 241, 242, 924(c)(1), 1519, 1951(a), 1962(d); 21 U.S.C. § 841; see U.S. ex rel. Spay v. CVS Caremark Corp., 913 F. Supp. 2d 125, 139 (E.D. Pa. 2012) () (citations omitted). On July 30, 2014, the Philadelphia Police Department terminated the six indicted Officers.
Judge Robreno presided over Plaintiffs' criminal jury trial. Opening statements began on March 30, 2015. (Doc. No. 375 in Crim. No. 14-412.) The Government called some 40 witnesses. (Doc. No. 452.) Plaintiffs called over 20 witnesses; Plaintiff Spicer testified on his own behalf. (Doc. Nos. 459, 465.) On May 14, 2015, after five days of deliberation, the jury acquitted on all charges. (Doc. Nos. 503-04.)
A labor arbitrator reinstated the Officers with back pay and expunged any reference to the terminations from their personnel records. The seventh Officer in this action, Otto, was not indicted, terminated, or suspended.
On November 21, 2013, all Plaintiffs (except Norman) commenced this action by filing a writ of summons in the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court. (Doc. No. 27 ¶ 1 in Civ. No. 15-3217.) Plaintiffs did not file their state-court Complaint until June 4, 2015, shortly after their acquittals, but before reinstatement. Defendants removed to this Court on June 9, 2015. (Doc. No. 1.)
Judge Restrepo (to whom this matter was initially assigned) granted Plaintiffs leave to amend. (Doc. No. 5.) On July 24, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint,bringing false light, defamation, and procedural due process claims. (Doc. No. 10.) On August 5, 2015, the case was reassigned to me. (Doc. No. 11); E.D. Pa. Local R. 40.1(c)(2).
After Defendants moved to dismiss, I granted Plaintiffs leave to amend. (Doc. Nos. 16-18.) On October 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the instant Second Amended Complaint, adding factual allegations. (Doc. No. 27.) On October 16, 2015, Norman, represented by the same counsel as the other Plaintiffs, filed his own Complaint in the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, with virtually identical allegations and the same claims as those in the Second Amended Complaint. On October 20, 2015, Defendants removed Norman's action to this Court. (Doc. No. 1 in Civ. No. 15-5690.) On October 23, 2015, I granted Defendants' unopposed Motion to consolidate both actions. (Doc. No. 31 in Civ. No. 15-3217.)
On November 5, 2015, Defendants Williams and the District Attorney's Office moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, and on November 6, 2015, Commissioner Ramsey, Mayor Nutter, and the City of Philadelphia moved to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 32, 34.) On December 12, 2015, Plaintiff responded. (Doc. No. 38.)
Plaintiffs, who "characterize[]" themselves "as heroic," bring the instant action to obtain relief from "the disgraceful calumnies" and "cruel farce" they "have been subjected to by the Defendants." (Doc. No. 27 ¶¶ 50, 138, 142.) Having been acquitted because the case against them "was literally laughable and disgraceful," Plaintiffs have suffered an "avalanche of injustices" and "destruction." (Id. ¶¶ 10, 69, 76.)
In Plaintiffs' view, their victimization resulted from Plaintiff Liciardello's "very blunt, speak-his-mind, get-things-done, personality," and the "D.A. Office's desire to receive more credit for narcotics successes and receive a greater share of seized and forfeited drug money."(Id. 72-75.) Motivated by these "petty or non-pertinent . . . conflicts . . . and resentments," on December 3, 2012, District Attorney Williams sent then-Commissioner Ramsey "an entirely misbegotten and irresponsible letter" regarding all Plaintiffs except Norman, stating that, "in an exercise of prosecutorial discretion," the Philadelphia D.A.'s Office would no longer: 1) call Plaintiffs as witnesses in narcotics cases; 2) charge narcotics cases where a Plaintiff would be a necessary witness; and 3) approve warrants where a Plaintiff was the affiant or if the warrant included averments from any Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 5, 51, 72.) On December 4, 2012, all Plaintiffs except Norman (who was not mentioned in Williams' letter) were transferred from Narcotics to other units. (Id. ¶ 90.)
The D.A.'s Office informed the public of these transfers, which led to news reports. (Id. ¶ 98.) Commissioner Ramsey also "publicized and disseminated the substance and contents of [Williams'] letter." (Id. ¶ 100.) The D.A.'s Office eventually withdrew or dismissed hundreds of criminal cases involving Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶¶ 100-05.) These events led to the filing of dozens of civil rights lawsuits against Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶ 128.)
On January 17, 2014, Commissioner Ramsey stated at a press conference that a federal grand jury was investigating at least four Plaintiffs, and that he was removing all seven Plaintiffs from street duty and would require them to surrender their weapons. (Id. ¶¶ 106-08; see also Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 86-89 in Civ. No. 15-5690 (Norman Compl.).) On July 29, 2014, the grand jury indicted all Plaintiffs except Otto. (Id. ¶ 113); (Doc. No. 1 in Crim. No. 14-412.) The charges were based on twenty-two distinct episodes of alleged criminal conduct.
On July 30, 2014, the six indicted Plaintiffs were fired. (Doc. No. 27 ¶ 179 in Civ. No. 15-3217.) The next day, Commissioner Ramsey and Mayor Nutter held a joint pressconference at which they addressed the Indictment and announced the terminations. (Id. ¶ 114.) Ramsey stated: "I have been a police officer for more than 40 years and this is one of the worst corruption cases that I have ever heard." He also announced that the indicted Plaintiffs' badges would be destroyed. (Id. ¶¶ 116-17.) Mayor Nutter called the indicted Plaintiffs "sick scumbags." (Id. ¶ 115).
After Plaintiffs' May 14, 2015 acquittal, Commissioner Ramsey told the press: "I thought that the U.S. Attorney had a good case, but unfortunately the jury didn't agree." (Id. ¶ 134 (emphasis in original).) The acquitted Plaintiffs filed grievances pursuant to the Police Union's Collective Bargaining Agreement with the City. (Id. ¶ 177.) On July 10, 2015, an arbitrator reinstated them "with back pay," finding that there was "no just cause" for the terminations. (Id. ¶¶ 122, 179.) The arbitrator further ordered the terminations expunged from Plaintiffs' personnel records and prohibited the City "from rely[ing] or mak[ing] reference to that discharge for any employment related purpose in the future." (Id. ¶ 181.) On July 27, 2015, the Philadelphia Daily News quoted Commissioner Ramsey: "It is very, very unfortunate that the U.S. Attorney's Office did not win the case." It also quoted D.A. Williams stating that the acquittal would "not alter [the D.A.'s Office's] approach concerning these officers." (Id. ¶ 136.)
Proceeding against all Defendants, Plaintiffs allege: 1) false light; 2) defamation; and 3) "stigma-plus" procedural due process violations. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff Otto's § 1983 claim relates only to his December 2012 transfer from the Narcotics Unit and January 2014 removal from street duty; he was never indicted or terminated. As to the remaining six indicted Plaintiffs, their § 1983 claims involve theirDecember 2012 transfer, January 2014 removal from street duty, July 2014 termination, May 2015 acquittal, and July 2015 reinstatement.
Plaintiff Norman, who was indicted, is the only Plaintiff who was not subject to the December 2012 transfer or mentioned in D.A. Williams' December 3, 2012 letter to Commissioner Ramsey. Otherwise, his § 1983 claim entails the same events as those of the other indicted Plaintiffs.
Faced with compelling dismissal motions, all Plaintiffs ask to "withdraw[] all claims" against Williams and the D.A.'s Office, presumably with prejudice. (Doc. No. 38 at 11.) They also seek to "withdraw[] without prejudice" their false light and defamation claims against the other Defendants. (Id. at 10-11 (emphasis added).) Plaintiff Otto apparently also wishes to withdraw as "a party Plaintiff without prejudice." (Id.) Were I to accede to Plaintiffs'...
To continue reading
Request your trial