Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-209 CIVILRANDY DRAWBAUGH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 02-209 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP POLICE, PATROLMAN JAMES MCANDREW, and PATROLMAN STEVEN SHISSLER, Defendants IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE BAYLEY AND HESS, J.J. OPINION AND ORDER This action was commenced on January 23, 2002, with the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons. A complaint was filed in April of 2002. The pro se complaint lacks clarity and the factual allegations can be gleaned only with careful reading. It appears that, on or about October 20, 2000, the plaintiff, Randy Drawbaugh, was arrested and incarcerated. At the time of his arrest, his vehicle, a 1990 Dodge Daytona, was parked at 160 Cassell Drive in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. On October 30, 2000, concerned that his vehicle may be being used by other persons who were not authorized to drive it, the defendant sent a letter to the Hampden Township Police Department. In the letter he reported that his car had been stolen by Lisa Kennedy and Sean Arnold. He also complained that "whoever searched my car that day should never of [sic] gave them [sic] keys to them." See Exhibit A to plaintiff' s complaint. Also attached to the plaintiff' s complaint is Exhibit B. This consists of an incident report which makes it clear that the Hampden Township Police were not involved in the search of the plaintiff' s vehicle nor was it the Hampden Township Police Department that had possession of his keys. Exhibit B of the plaintiff' s complaint also contains 02-209 CIVIL a letter from Patrolman James McAndrew, a Hampden Township police officer and a defendant in this case. This letter reiterated that the Hampden Township Police had not been involved in the search of the plaintiff' s vehicle nor had they given the keys to the vehicle to anyone. The letter also indicated that ownership of the vehicle had been traced to a Lynn B. Lowe of East Berlin, Pennsylvania. Patrolman McAndrew also indicated that he had had little contact with Lisa Kennedy and Sean Arnold. Exhibit (2 of the plaintiff' s complaint is an affidavit dated November 3, 2000, in which the plaintiff indicates that he had not given Lisa Kennedy or Sean Arnold permission to operate his vehicle and requests that they be arrested. Exhibit D of the plaintiff' s complaint is another letter from Patrolman James McAndrew. This letter is dated December 4, 2000, and indicates that Patrolman James McAndrew had interviewed Lisa Kennedy. She claimed to have been given permission to use the vehicle though, at the time of the writing of the letter, she did not know its location or who was using the vehicle. Officer McAndrew indicated that he had entered the vehicle into the nationwide police computer system as a stolen vehicle, that the vehicle was eventually located and had been towed to a service center. The letter, further, instructed the defendant to contact the West Manchester Township Police Department in order to retrieve his vehicle. The plaintiff' s complaint does not allege that the Hampden Township Police Department, at any time, possessed either his vehicle or his keys. The gravamen of his complaint is that the Hampden Township Police Department failed to honor his request to file charges against Sean Arnold and Lisa Kennedy. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiff' s theory of recovery in the present action rests upon the argument that the defendants, by not arresting Kennedy and Arnold, failed to properly perform their police duties. The United States Supreme Court has held on numerous occasions that a private individual lacks 2 02-209 CIVIL the authority to contest a police officer's discretion in arresting a third party. Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619, 35 L.Ed.2 536, 541 (1973). "[I]n American jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another." Id. According to The Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Torts Claim Act (the "Act"), "no local agency shall be liable for any damages on account of any injury, to a person or property, caused by any act of the local agency, or an employee thereof or any other person." 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 8541. Thus, this section generally precludes plaintiff's claims against the Hampden Township Police Department. His only recourse against the police department, or the individual officers involved, would be if their alleged negligent acts fell within one of the eight exceptions to immunity enumerated in the Act. The only potentially applicable exceptions pertain to vehicle liability, and care, custody or control of personal property. The first exception states that the local agency or its employees may be liable for negligent acts involving the "operation of any motor vehicle in the possession or control of the local agency..." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8542(b)(1). The second exception involves the "care, custody or control of personal property of others in the possession or control of the local agency." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8542(b)(2). In order to remain faithful to the expressed legislative intent of the Act, courts are required to interpret the exceptions narrowly against injured plaintiffs. See Leone v. Com. 780 A.2d 754 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). In the present case, plaintiff's cause of action is for defendants' failure to arrest Arnold and Kennedy, and defendants' overall failure to perform their duties. Nowhere in the pleadings is there any claim that the 3 02-209 CIVIL defendants had "possession or control" of the vehicle, or that they had participated in the "operation" of the vehicle. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8542 (b)(1). There is also no claim that defendants had the requisite "care, custody or control" of plaintiff's personal property. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8542 (b)(2). Defendants McAndrew and Shissler are also generally immune from plaintiff's claim of negligence. "An employee of a local agency is liable for civil damages on account of any injury to a person or property caused by acts of the employee which are within the scope of his office or duties only to the same extent as his employing local agency and subject to the limitations imposed by this chapter." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8545. If the defendants' actions do not fall within one of the narrowly defined exceptions in § 8542, then the individual defendants receive official immunity, unless the alleged injury was caused by an act which constitutes "a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8550. Plaintiff's only cause of action against defendants is for negligence. Nowhere does plaintiff aver that defendants' acts constituted a "crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct." Id. Due to the fact that plaintiff's cause of action against defendants is limited to negligence, the plaintiff's attempt to recover punitive damages is also barred. It has been established that none of the exceptions to governmental immunity apply in this case. Moreover, the plaintiff has not alleged that the defendants' actions were "malicious, wanton, reckless, willful or oppressive," which is required for the granting of punitive damages. Feld v. Merriam, 485 A.2d 742, 748 (Pa. 1984). 4 02-209 CIVIL ORDER AND NOW, this day of October, 2002, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed of even date herewith, the preliminary objections of the defendants to the plaintiff' s complaint are SUSTAINED and the within complaint DISMISSED. BY THE COURT, Kevin A. Hess, J. Randy Drawbaugh, Pro Se Inmate #CF6052 SCI-Mahonoy 301 Morea Road Frackville, PA 17932 Plaintiff James D. Young, Esquire For the Defendants :rlm RANDY DRAWBAUGH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 02-209 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP POLICE, PATROLMAN JAMES MCANDREW, and PATROLMAN STEVEN SHISSLER, Defendants IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE BAYLEY AND HESS, J.J. ORDER AND NOW, this day of October, 2002, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed of even date herewith, the preliminary objections of the defendants to the plaintiff' s complaint are SUSTAINED and the within complaint DISMISSED. BY THE COURT, Kevin A. Hess, J. Randy Drawbaugh, Pro Se Inmate #CF6052 SCI-Mahonoy 301 Morea Road Frackville, PA 17932 Plaintiff James D. Young, Esquire For the Defendants :rlm