Snyder v. Daugherty

Citation899 F.Supp.2d 391
Decision Date28 September 2012
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 2:11–cv–00879.
PartiesShanni SNYDER, and Shanni Snyder as natural guardian for minor child E.S., v. Michael DAUGHERTY, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Shanni Snyder, Irwin, PA, pro se.

Paul D. Krepps, Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendants.

OPINION

MARK R. HORNAK, District Judge.

Pending before the Court are two motions filed by Defendants Michael Daugherty, David Bertok, Robert Rizzo, James Novak, Gregory Arendas, Robert Dippolito, Nicholas Dreistadt, William Sombo, Carl Steinkopf, William Kauffman, Jeffrey Bouldin, and William Bouldin. The first motion is a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's minor son E.S. from this case, ECF No. 38, and the second is a Supplemental Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 42. The Court has considered Plaintiff Shanni Snyder's Amended Complaint, the pending motions, and the various briefs in support of and in opposition to these motions. ECF Nos. 27, 38–39, 42–43, 48. The matters are ripe for disposition, and, for the reasons that follow, the motions are granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND

The factual allegations in this case are dense and complex. The Court will distill the relevant facts from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, which describes in great detail how the actions of certain North Huntingdon police officers allegedly violated her and/or her minor son's constitutional rights. When considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, the Court must accept the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiff's favor. See Allah v. Al–Hafeez, 226 F.3d 247, 249 (3d Cir.2000). Therefore, for the purposes of the disposition of Defendants' Motions, the essential facts are as follows.

Plaintiff Shanni Synder (“Ms. Snyder” or “Shanni”) 1, acting pro se on behalf of herself and her son, brings suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)2 against the following employees of the North Huntingdon Police Department in their individual capacities: Chief of Police Michael Daugherty (Chief Daugherty), Sergeant Gregory Arendas (“Sgt. Arendas”), Sergeant David Bertok (“Sgt. Bertok”), Sergeant Jeffrey Bouldin (“Sgt. Jeffrey Bouldin), Sergeant Robert Rizzo (“Sgt. Rizzo”), Officer William Bouldin, Officer Robert Dippolito (“Officer Dippolito”), Officer Nicholas Dreistadt (“Officer Dreistadt”),Officer William Kauffman (“Officer Kauffman”), Officer James Novak (“Officer Novak”), Officer William Sombo (“Officer Sombo”), Officer Carl Steinkopf (“Officer Steinkopf”) (collectively Defendant Officers”). Synder alleges in her Amended Complaint that the Defendant Officers violated her First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights during the course of events surrounding her removal from a rental home located at 1140 Augusta Circle, North Huntington, Pennsylvania.3 Am. Compl. ¶¶ 17, 19, ECF No. 27.

Ms. Snyder began to permanently reside at the Augusta Circle rental property with her two children and her mother, Sharon Snyder, beginning in October 2010. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 34, 40. Ms. Snyder never executed a residential lease with the owner of the property, William Scalise (“Landlord Scalise”). Id. ¶ ¶ 28–29, 82. Instead, Ms. Snyder's sister, Tammy McCarl, nee Snyder (“Mrs. McCarl”), signed the rental agreement with the intention of allowing Ms. Snyder, her two children, and her mother to live in the home. Id. ¶¶ 29–31. To that end, the lease stated that [o]ccupancy shall be limited to 2 adults and 2 children.” Ans. Ex. A. ¶ 7. It was a one year lease executed on July 1, 2010 that permitted no assignments, and included the option to purchase. Id. ¶ ¶ 10, 12.

On June 27, 2011, Ms. Synder obtained a protection from abuse order (“PFA”) against her mother Sharon Snyder from the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas after Sharon allegedly assaulted Ms. Snyder. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 41, 44. The PFA required Sharon Snyder to leave the premises. Id. ¶ 44. That same day, after Sharon Snyder's departure from the Augusta Circle residence, Mrs. McCarl “verbally directed [Ms. Snyder] to leave the property on the basis that the lease listed only [Mrs. McCarl's] name ...” because Mrs. McCarl “disagreed with Ms. Snyder's action in obtaining the PFA order.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 58–59. Mrs. McCarl also contacted Landlord Scalise to inform him that she (Mrs. McCarl) would not be renewing the lease on the Augusta Circle home and that she wanted Ms. Snyder removed from the property. See id. ¶¶ 60–61 (“McCarl advised the landlord that if Shanni [were] removed, she would reinstall Sharon at the house”).

Landlord Scalise and Mrs. McCarl then began to repeatedly direct Ms. Snyder and her children to leave the home. Id. ¶ 63. On June 29, 2011, Mrs. McCarl's husband, Kevin McCarl (“Mr. McCarl”), attempted to enter the Augusta Circle residence with a key. Id. ¶¶ 64–65. When the key did not work, Mr. McCarl tried to forcibly enter the home, and when that was unsuccessful, contacted the North Huntingdon police. Id. ¶¶ 65, 69. Defendants Rizzo, Novak, and Dreistadt arrived at the scene, followed by Landlord Scalise. Id. ¶¶ 69–70. After speaking with Ms. Snyder through a window, where she repeatedly asserted that she was entitled to a Notice to Quit under Pennsylvania's Landlord–Tenant Act, Sgt. Rizzo and Officer Novak informed Ms. Snyder that she was “legally required to allow [Landlord Scalise] to enter the house.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 73–76. When Ms. Snyder opened the door, all three police officers and Landlord Scalise entered without her consent. Id. ¶ 77. Landlord Scalise proceeded to inspect the home. Id. ¶ 81.

Sometime later, Sgt. Rizzo contacted Assistant District Attorney of Westmoreland County Allen Powanda (“ADA Powanda”) who advised Sgt. Rizzo that Ms. Snyder was a trespasser on the Augusta Circle property. Id. ¶ 82. Sgt. Rizzo allegedly documented the following in a police report regarding the legal advice he received from ADA Powanda.

[Mrs. McCarl] can tell [Ms. Snyder] to leave right now and if she didn't then it would be defiant trespass. OR we can wait until the lease is up tomorrow at midnight and then at 1201 Mr. Scalise can tell her to leave or it would be Defiant Tresspass [sic], ... [Ms. Snyder has] no rights under the Landlord Tenant because she is not on the lease and the person who is on the lease is moving out of the house and the lease is up within 24 hours.... [ADA Powanda] stated that if the current person on the lease tells her to leave it is a Defiant Trespass and at Noon on June 30th when the owner of the home Mr. Scalise takes the property back from [Mrs. McCarl] he can order her out of the house and it becomes a Defiant Tresspass [sic].

Id. ¶ 82. Accordingly, at around noon on, possibly, June 30, 4 Defendants Dreistadt, Rizzo, and Novak informed Ms. Snyder that she needed to leave by 12:01 a.m. or else she would be arrested for defiant trespass. Id. ¶ 83. Ms. Snyder protested, stating that she had not received a Notice to Quit, even though she had been living in the house from between four (4) months to one (1) year. Id. ¶¶ 84–86.

Shortly thereafter, Mrs. McCarl entered the house escorted by Sgt. Rizzo, Officer Novak, and Officer Dreistadt. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 94–96. Mrs. McCarl again verbally directed Ms. Snyder to leave the property by midnight. Id. ¶ 96. Ms. Snyder and/or her son attempted to video record the conversation, but Defendants Rizzo, Dreistadt, and Novak “threatened Plaintiffs with arrest if they attempted to record them.” Id. ¶ 99. The police officers then left the scene. Id. ¶ 98.

The following sequence of events, taking place over the course of approximately two days, constitutes the “self help” eviction that Ms. Snyder contends violated her constitutional rights. First, Mrs. McCarl arranged for Ms. Snyder's possessions to be moved to the garage “where she could easily remove them from the house.” Id. ¶ 101. Ms. Snyder was informed by Defendants Rizzo, Dreistadt, and Novak that her belongings would be moved to the garage after the officers again entered the Augusta Circle residence without her permission. Id. ¶ 102. Beyond providing her with this information, the three officers apparently did not personally touch or remove any of Ms. Snyder's or her son's possessions from the Augusta Circle home at any time during these events, nor did any other of the Defendant Officers. See generally id. ¶¶ 101–55.

Next, Mr. McCarl entered the home with a Pennsylvania State Constable and began boxing “everything in the house, including items belonging to Plaintiffs such as certain furniture and televisions.” Id. ¶ 112. Defendants Rizzo, Novak, and Dreistadt arrived on the scene and witnessed the actions of Mr. McCarl and the Constable, but did not intervene. Id. ¶¶ 113–14. The officers then left. Id. ¶ 114.

At this time, Sgt. Rizzo obtained a copy of the lease from Landlord Scalise's real estate office and provided it to Officer Novak. Am. Compl. ¶ 117–18. Officer Novak contacted ADA Powanda for the second time and reported the following exchange;

ADA Powanda stated that ... [t]he lease is up and [Ms. Snyder] still has no legal standing in the residence. [ADA Powanda] stated that it will be a Defiant Trespass if [Ms. Snyder] [chooses to] stay at the residence after she was told by Mr. Scalise to leave the home.... [Scalise] should tell her to leave while the police are present at the residence. I told him that we ran her drivers information and she has a North Versailles, PA residence listed as her address....

Id. ¶ 122. Officer Novak then informed ADA Powanda that the lease actually expired on July 1, 2011 to which ADA Powanda responded [i]f or when Mr. Scalise goes to the house on Friday the same holds true [as Ms. Snyder is] not permitted to be there and it is not a Landlord Tenant case.” Id. ¶ 124.

On July 1, Ms. Snyder filed a lawsuit against Landlord Scalise...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Anderson v. Macy's, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • May 2, 2013
    ...Anderson with them, he or she needs to enter their appearance on her behalf, as “ghostwriting” is not permitted. Snyder v. Daugherty, 899 F.Supp.2d 391, 414 (W.D.Pa.2012); see also Delso v. Trustees For Ret. Plan For Hourly Emps. of Merck & Co., Inc., No. 04–3009 AET, 2007 WL 766349, *15–16......
  • Dix v. Edelman Fin. Servs., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • October 19, 2020
    ...of a full-fledged tenant ... is a self-generated legal conclusion to which this Court owes no deference." Snyder v. Daugherty , 899 F. Supp. 2d 391, 407 (W.D. Pa. 2012).The second problem for Dix is that the rest of his allegations actively undermine his conclusory assertion that he was a t......
  • Everett v. Hous. Auth. of Shamokin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • November 1, 2013
    ...and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Allah v. Al-Hafeez, 226 F.3d 247, 249 (3d Cir. 2000); Snyder v. Daugherty 899 F.Supp.2d 391, 396 (W.D. Pa. 2012). In other words, a district court applies the same standard to a judgment on the pleadings as a motion to dismiss pur......
  • Eash v. Cnty. of York
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • March 30, 2020
    ...determine whether Rinker and Stroud's actions violated Eash's clearly established constitutional rights. See Snyder v. Daugherty , 899 F. Supp. 2d 391, 405 (W.D. Pa. 2012) ("The Third Circuit and its district courts have been wary of finding qualified immunity as a matter of law with respec......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT