Sims v. Castagna

• Decision Date: 24 March 2022
• Docket Number: 2:20-CV-01130-CCW
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
• Parties: NEAL SIMS, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD CASTAGNA, DETECTIVE KRAH, AGENT BARACOCCI, MATTHEW DRUSKIN, and DAVID KLOBUCHER, Defendants.

NEAL SIMS, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD CASTAGNA, DETECTIVE KRAH, AGENT BARACOCCI, MATTHEW DRUSKIN, and DAVID KLOBUCHER, Defendants.

No. 2:20-CV-01130-CCW

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

March 24, 2022

OPINION

CHRISTY CRISWELL WIEGAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Penn Hills Police Officer Matthew Druskin Detective Shawn Krah, and Officer David Klobucher (the “Penn Hills Defendants”), ECF No. 33, and Defendants Pennsylvania Bureau of Narcotics Agents Richard Castagna and Wesley Baracocci^[1] (the “BNI Defendants”), ECF No. 40. For the following reasons both Motions will be GRANTED.

I. Background

A. Procedural History

After Mr. Sims, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed his operative Second Amended Complaint, Defendants filed Answers, and the case proceeded into discovery. See ECF No. 24 (Second Amended Complaint); ECF No. 28 (Penn Hills Defendants' Answer); ECF No. 30 (BNI Defendants' Answer). Mr. Sims brings four claims pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983, all alleging violations of his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution: unreasonable seizure (Count I); unreasonable search (Count II); false arrest (Count III); and excessive force (Count IV). See ECF No. 24 at 3-5.

Following the close of discovery, the BNI Defendants and the Penn Hills Defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts. See ECF No. 33 (Penn Hills Defendants' Motion) and ECF No. 40 (BNI Defendants' Motion). In their Motion, the BNI Defendants sought, in part, to “join the legal arguments made [by the Penn Hills Defendants] to the extent applicable to the claims asserted against the BNI Defendants.” ECF No. 40 ¶ 10. Because the BNI Defendants offered no facts or argument supporting a claim for qualified immunity (an argument expressly advanced by the Penn Hills Defendants), the Court directed the BNI Defendants to either notify the Court that they are not seeking qualified immunity, or, if they are seeking qualified immunity, to file a supplemental brief in support of that position. See ECF No. 59. The Court also provided an opportunity for Mr. Sims to file a response. Id. The BNI Defendants clarified that they indeed seek qualified immunity, and filed a brief in support. See ECF No. 60. Mr. Sims did not file a response. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 33 and 40, are fully briefed and ripe for disposition.

B. Material Facts

The parties disagree about many of the facts in this case. Mr. Sims, however, has not complied with the requirements of our Local Rules in responding to Defendants' statements of material fact. See L.Cv.R 56(C)(1)(a) (requiring party opposing summary judgment to “admit[] or deny[] whether each fact contained in the moving party's Concise Statement of Material Facts is undisputed and/or material”). The Penn Hills Defendants filed a Concise Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, see ECF No. 35, setting forth 51 consecutively numbered statements of fact, in compliance with L.Cv.R 56(B)(1). The BNI Defendants filed their own Concise Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, in which they joined the Penn Hills Defendants' Concise Statement, and added two additional numbered fact statements of their own. See ECF No. 42. In his responsive Disputed Material Facts Against Penn Hills Police Defendants and Disputed Material Facts Against BNI Defendants, Mr. Sims only responded to facts that he disputes, see ECF Nos. 48 (response to BNI Defendants CSOF) and 51 (response to Penn Hills Defendants CSOF). As such, because “[c]ourts located in the Western District of Pennsylvania require strict compliance with the provisions of Local Rule 56, ” Peay v. Co Sager, No. 1:16-cv-130, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18345 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2022) (Lanzillo, M.J.) report and recommendation affirmed by, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33036 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2022), to the extent Mr. Sims did not respond to any particular statement of fact, or did not provide a contradictory statement of fact in his own fact statement, see ECF No. 52, that fact is deemed to have been admitted. See Angle v. Carter, No. 1:16-cv-00276 (Erie), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17573, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2019) (Lanzillo, M.J.) (noting, in case with pro se plaintiff, “[a]ccording to the Local Rules of this Court, undisputed facts ‘will for the purpose of deciding the motion for summary judgment be deemed admitted unless specifically denied or otherwise controverted by a separate concise statement of the opposing party.'”) (quoting L.Cv.R. 56(E)); see also Boyd v. Citizens Bank of Pa., Inc., Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00332, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70210, at *6-7 (W.D. Pa. May 22, 2014) (Fischer, J.) (recognizing that, while “courts accord pro se litigants a certain degree of leniency, particularly with respect to procedural rules, ” “[p]ro se litigants must adhere to procedural rules as would parties assisted by counsel…. This includes procedural requirements regarding the provision of adequate factual averments to sustain legal claims.”) (citations omitted).

Unless noted otherwise, the undisputed, material facts, drawn from the parties' concise statements of material fact, responses thereto, and the evidence submitted in support of and opposition to the instant Motions, ^[2] are as follows:

1. The Pursuit

On August 20, 2019, Det. Krah and NA Castagna were patrolling in an unmarked police vehicle and they observed Mr. Sims at a GetGo gas station in Penn Hills, Pennsylvania. See ECF No. 35 ¶ 1. Mr. Sims' car had dark tinted side windows, which appeared to Det. Krah and NA Castagna to be in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4524(e). See Id. ¶ 2. After Mr. Sims left the gas station, ^[3] Det. Krah and NA Castagna attempted to initiate a traffic stop by activating the lights and sirens on their vehicle. See Id. ¶ 4. Mr. Sims did not immediately pull over; instead, he continued driving for more than half a mile until reaching his aunt's house on Hochburg Road, with Det. Krah and NA Castagna in pursuit. See Id. ¶¶ 5, 10, 14; see ECF No. 51 ¶ 2 (disputing only that Defendants would have been able to observe Mr. Sims through the rear windshield of his vehicle); see also ECF No. 54 ¶¶ 8-9. Mr. Sims maintains that he drove at or below the speed limit and obeyed all traffic laws, see ECF No. 51 ¶ 1, ECF No. 52 ¶ 5; Defendants contend that Mr. Sims drove at a high rate of speed and committed multiple traffic violations during the pursuit (in addition to failing to stop when signaled by police). See ECF No. 35 ¶ 9. Although Mr. Sims was aware the vehicle pursuing him might have been the police, he was not sure, and so continued driving until he reached a place he believed was safe (i.e. his aunt's house on Hochburg Road). See Id. ¶¶ 6-8; ECF No. 36-1 at 42:18-21 (Mr. Sims conceding that he “knew it was a possibility it could be the police”) and 43:3-5 (testifying “I went in the direction that I was going to my aunt's house, the closest destination that I knew I was safe.”).

In their reports of the incident, Det. Krah and NA Castagna claim that they observed, through the tinted rear windshield, Mr. Sims reaching towards the passenger seat of his car, leading them to believe Mr. Sims may have been attempting to grab or conceal a firearm. See ECF No. 35 ¶¶ 10-11. Mr. Sims disputes that they would have been able to observe his movements through the dark tinting of the rear windshield on his car, although he does not dispute that he reached towards the passenger side of the car. See ECF No. 51 ¶ 2-3, ECF No. 52 ¶¶ 3-4.

2. The Physical Encounter

After arriving at his aunt's house, Mr. Sims parked his car on the side of Hochburg Road. See ECF No. 35 ¶ 14. Det. Krah and NA Castagna stopped behind Mr. Sims. See ECF No. 36-1 at 84:18-20 (Q: “Their vehicle, was it in front of your vehicle or behind your vehicle?” A: “Behind my vehicle.”). According to Mr. Sims, after rolling up the windows, he got out of his car and either walked towards Det. Krah and NA Castagna or stood still, in either case with his hands raised while asking something to the effect of, “What's wrong? What's going on here?” ECF No. 36-1 at 23:13-21, 32:8-12, 84:8-85:10. Mr. Sims testified that, although he saw that Det. Krah and NA Castagna were wearing tactical vests with the word “POLICE” on the chest, he was still unsure that they were police officers because they were operating an unmarked car and did not display any badges. See Id. at 32:13-19 (“I seen no badges. I seen no chain badges, no nothing. It was just people with guns that said ‘Police' on them. Nothing else.”); see also ECF No. 35 ¶ 16. Det. Krah and NA Castagna, who at this point had drawn their firearms, ordered Mr. Sims to get on the ground. See ECF No. 35 ¶ 17; see ECF No. 36-1 at 23:15-18, 85:3-4. Mr. Sims concedes that he did not comply with this command, but instead continued to move. See ECF No. 35 ¶¶ 18-19; see also ECF No. 36-1 at 85:5-15. Defendants maintain, and Mr. Sims does not dispute, that Mr. Sims appeared to Det. Krah and NA Castagna to be “possibly attempting to take a position of cover and possibly attempting to grab a weapon.” ECF No. 35 ¶ 20. According to Mr. Sims, NA Castagna then holstered his sidearm and tackled Mr. Sims through a line of bushes and down a short slope onto the yard of Mr. Sims' aunt's house. See ECF No. 36-1 at 24:12-17. At some point before he was tackled, Mr. Sims threw his car keys onto the porch of his aunt's house. See ECF No. 35 ¶ 15; see ECF No. 36-1 at 25:3-5.

The parties disagree about what happened next, including: who struck whom, whether Mr. Sims struck anyone at all, and whether Mr. Sims resisted the efforts of Defendants to restrain him. Compare, e.g., ECF No. 35 ¶¶ 21-26 with ECF No. 51 ¶¶ 5-11....