Pinkney v. Meadville, Pa.

• Decision Date: 03 January 2023
• Docket Number: 1:19-cv-00167 (Erie)
• Parties: KOBE PINKNEY, Plaintiff v. MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA, et al, Defendants
• Court: United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania

KOBE PINKNEY, Plaintiff
v.
MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA, et al, Defendants

No. 1:19-cv-00167 (Erie)

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

January 3, 2023

OPINION ON DEFENDANT JARED FRUM'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 86)

RICHARD A. LANZILLO, Chief United States Magistrate Judge.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Kobe Pinkney commenced this action against Jared Frum, a police officer employed by the City of Meadville, Pennsylvania, Police Department, and other defendants alleging, among other claims, that Officer Frum arrested him without probable cause in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.^[1] Pinkney's Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) seeks redress of this violation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Officer Frum moved to dismiss Pinkney's clams against him, including Pinkney's false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). He argued that these three claims failed as a matter of law because probable cause supported the criminal charges Officer Frum initiated against Pinkney and, alternatively, qualified immunity shields him from these claims.

1

The Court denied Officer Frum's motion as to Pinkney's false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims, and Officer Frum appealed the denial of qualified immunity to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Without reaching the merits of Officer Frum's qualified immunity defense, the Court of Appeals vacated this Court's Order on the grounds that the Court should have considered an audio recording of a witness, Duncan Freeland, in deciding the motion and remanded the case for further consideration.^[2] See ECF No. 112; Pinkney v. Meadville, Pennsylvania, 2022 WL 1616972 (3d Cir. May 23, 2022). Having reviewed the audio recording of the Freeland interview as well as the allegations of the SAC and the exhibits thereto, the Court will again deny Frum's motion.

IL Procedural History

The procedural history of this case before remand from the Court of Appeals is set forth in the Court's prior Opinion and Order on Officer Frum's motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 106. In summary, by prior orders, the Court dismissed all claims against all defendants except Officer Frum and the City of Meadville. See ECF Nos. 70, 71, 81, 106, 107. The sole remaining claim against the City of Meadville is a state law conversion claim over which this Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). See ECF No. 106. This claim was previously addressed and not presently before the Court. Id. The only remaining claims against Officer Frum are Pinkney's false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims,

2

which are the subject of his pending motion. Id. Pinkney's operative pleading is his SAC. ECF No. 83.

III. Standard of Review and Scope of Record

A. Rule 12(b)(6)

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Kostv. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993). In deciding a motion to dismiss, the court is not opining on whether the plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits; rather, the plaintiff must only present factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007) (citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed. 2004)). See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, (2009). A complaint should only be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(6) if it fails to allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 (rejecting the traditional Rule 12 (b)(6) standard established in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). In making this determination, the court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint and view them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. U.S. Express Lines Ltd. v. Higgins, 281 F.3d 383, 388 (3d Cir. 2002). The court may also “consider an undisputedly authentic document that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiffs claims are based on the document.” Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993).

While a complaint does not need to include detailed factual allegations to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must provide more than labels and conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id.

3

(citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Moreover, a court need not accept inferences drawn by a plaintiff if they are unsupported by the facts as set forth in the complaint. See California Pub. Employee Ret. Sys. v. The Chubb Corp., 394 F.3d 126, 143 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997)). Nor must the court accept legal conclusions disguised as factual allegations. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. See also McTernan v. City of York, Pennsylvania, 577 F.3d 521, 531 (3d Cir. 2009) (“The tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.”).

B. Scope of Record

As a preliminary matter, the Court must address which materials comprise the record on Officer Frum's motion to dismiss. This is necessary because Officer Frum has filed numerous documents, affidavits, and other materials, many of which are not properly considered on a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Officer Frum has not requested that the Court convert his motion to one for summary judgment and, to the extent his filing of such materials is an implied invitation to do so, the Court declines.^[3]

When ruling upon a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court must “generally consider only the allegations in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint,

4

matters of public record, and documents that form the basis of a claim.” Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217, 222 n.3 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997)). As this summary indicates, “the court may consider certain narrowly defined types of material without converting the motion to dismiss to a summary judgment motion, such as a document that is integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint.” Jones v. Middletown Twp., 253 Fed.Appx. 184, 187 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing In re Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc. Securities Litig, 184 F.3d 280, 287 (3d Cir. 1999)). Such materials also include “an undisputedly authentic document that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiffs claims are based on the document.” Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993). However, the Court may not consider “extraneous evidence submitted by the defense” when ruling on a motion to dismiss. In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d at 1426.

The following materials filed by Officer Frum are properly considered as part of the record on his motion:

• The criminal complaint and affidavit of probable cause that Officer Frum submitted on April 11,2019, charging Pinkney with aggravated assault, simple assault, harassment, and disorderly conduct. See ECF No. 86-1. Pinkney also attached these documents to his SAC and explicitly relied upon them in support of certain of his claims. ECF No. 83-1, pp.4-5;

• Officer Frum's investigation report concerning the assault on Rhett Happel. Pinkney also attached this report to his SAC (ECF No. 83-1, pp.1-3) and relied upon it in support of certain of his claims; and

• The audio recording of Officer Frum's interview of Duncan Freeland on April 10, 2019. ECF No. 86-4. This interview was referenced in Officer Frum's investigation report, which Pinkney attached to his SAC. ECF No. 83-1, p.3. Although the Court has determined that the audio recording is not indisputably complete, the recorded portion of the interview is authentic and, therefore,

5

properly part of the record.^[4] See ECF No. 125.

The following materials appended to Officer Frum's motion and briefs are extraneous to the pending motion and are not properly part of the record for its resolution:

• An affidavit that Officer Frum prepared and submitted in support of his motion to dismiss and in which he makes representations concerning the contents of an unproduced report prepared by another officer. See ECF No. 86-3, ¶7.

Officer Frum's reliance upon this affidavit and the hearsay-on-hearsay it includes in support of his motion to dismiss is improper on multiple levels. First, an affidavit is not properly considered on a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See Rose v. Bartie, 871 F.2d 331 (3d Cir. 1989). Second, the affidavit purports to quote from another officer's report despite that Pinkney has never relied upon or referenced that report in his original, amended, or second amended complaints. Third, while Officer Frum's affidavit asserts that he is quoting the “pertinent part” of the other officer's report, he did not attach the report to his affidavit or otherwise produce it to the Court or Pinkney. See ECF No. 86-3, ¶7. Thus, Officer Frum seeks to have the Court consider his hearsay representations concerning selected portions of a document prepared by another officer (and not cited or relied upon by Pinkney) without disclosure of the document itself. This tactic is facially improper.

• A search warrant, supporting affidavit of probable cause, and search inventory (“Search Warrant Documents”) issued after Pinkney's arrest and pursuant to which a ring apparently worn by Pinkney was seized. ECF No. 86-2, pp. 1-3.

6

This search warrant and supporting affidavit of probable cause were prepared and submitted by...