PITTSBURGH – An Oakdale man is opposing attempts of North Fayette Township and one of its police detectives to dismiss his lawsuit for wrongful prosecution and constitutional rights violations, after he was arrested for a sexual assault on an 11 year-old girl that he says never happened.
Robert J. Lutz first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 4 versus North Fayette Township and Det. Donald J. Cokus Jr. of the North Fayette Township Police Department. All parties are based in Oakdale.
The suit said Lutz, 61 years old at the time of the events in question, has struggled with drug and alcohol dependency issues for most of his life and while he has had prior run-ins with the law, none of them involved unlawful sexual contact with others, especially minors.
Lutz, a grandfather of six children, said he also provides financial and physical care for his 88-year-old elderly mother, Violet Lutz.
“On or about May 25, 2017, an incident occurred in neighboring Findlay Township, in which plaintiff Bob Lutz was accused of touching a minor female, when the 13 year old was picked up with her boyfriend possessing a small amount of marijuana,” the suit stated.
“Findlay Township Patrolman Amaya took the initial statements from the minor female, when at that time the minor explained her reason for smoking weed was because Bob Lutz had touched on her breast and groin area two years previous, when she was 11 years old.
Because the alleged touching had occurred at Lutz’s residence, Findlay Police contacted North Fayette Police, and the allegations were directed to defendant North Fayette Township employee, Det. Donald J. Cokus, Jr.”
On May 31, 2017, Cokus telephoned Lutz and ordered him to go to the North Fayette Township Police Station. Lutz, on probation for a DUI, believed he had no choice but to obey Cokus’s order.
At the station, Cokus confronted Lutz with the minor female’s accusations.
“Cokus was emphatic that Bob Lutz was going to be arrested and go to jail unless Bob Lutz cooperated and wrote out a confession. Because plaintiff Lutz was on probation for a DUI, he was terrified that any violation of his probation would result in his immediate incarceration,” according to the lawsuit.
“Plaintiff Lutz desperately sought to avoid being arrested because he did not want to leave his octogenarian mother (Violet) by herself without anyone to take care of her. Plaintiff Lutz also did not want to go to jail.”
After three separate attempts, Lutz claims he was eventually coerced by Cokus into writing a confession. When Lutz was driven home by Cokus, he went into his house, told his mother Violet what just happened and telephoned Cokus, he said.
Lutz said he recanted what was written in the false confession, and that he only wrote it because he desperately wanted to go home to prepare his mother before he was arrested and taken to jail.
But Lutz was not arrested that day. About two weeks later, he was served with a county court criminal summons, on charges of indecent assault on a person less than 13 years of age, unlawful contact with a minor for sexual offenses and harassment. After a monthly probation evaluation appointment, Lutz said he was arrested and taken to jail based upon the sex offense charges.
“Lutz remained incarcerated in the county jail for 45 days, until, after two attempts, his counsel persuaded the court personnel that Violet was suffering physical deprivations, and with winter approaching, there was a very serious threat that her health would suffer unless Lutz was released,” the suit said.
“Lutz would not have remained in jail for 45 days if not for the malicious, negligent, reckless, and/or intentional actions of Cokus filing of the affidavit of probable cause based upon the coerced false confession.”
Lutz added despite the minor plaintiff’s mother having doubts to her daughter’s story and telling Cokus of same, based on her daughter’s alleged emotional problems, in addition to the daughter later recanting her story on two separate occasions, the prosecution against him was not stopped until the case went to trial.
The case ended on June 4, 2018, when the judge signed a Nolle Prosse form declining to prosecute the case, after the minor plaintiff again recanted her story.
Because of Cokus’s malicious, negligent, reckless, and/or intentional actions of the plaintiff Lutz was publicly shamed as a sex offender. While Lutz was incarcerated, he lost his job. The resulting stress, he said, caused his mother to have a heart attack and him to have withdrawn totally from public life.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss Lutz’s case on Aug. 24, citing the vagueness of some of his claims falling short of federal pleading standards, and that other claims were filed beyond the statute of limitations.
“All that defendants are able to discern with certainty is that Count I and Count II are federal civil rights claims. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that defendants should not be expected to speculate about the precise nature of the claims they are defending,” counsel for the defendants stated in its motion.
Referring to a two-year statute of limitations for false arrest and false imprisonment, defense counsel indicated these claims were untimely under the law.
The defense also objected to the plaintiff’s “intentional tort claims, which are not viable avenues of liability against the Township of North Fayette,” and that punitive damages are not a cause of action – and that other allegations against Cokus and the judge on his case were “disturbingly unprofessional.”
UPDATE
Counsel for Lutz objected to the defense’s dismissal attempt in a brief filed on Sept. 28.
“The defense states the correct law on the date of when a cause of action would accrue, however the statute of limitations in Pennsylvania is tolled when the plaintiff has another case, based upon the same facts, pending in the same Court or another Court,” the brief states.
“Since defendant Cokus negligently filed criminal charges against plaintiff, there was such an ongoing criminal case against the plaintiff and the statute of limitations was therefore tolled for the period the criminal case remained ongoing.”
The plaintiff also argued that the COVID-19 emergency further delayed the filing of his complaint and opposition to the attempt to dismiss the requested punitive damages for allegedly not being able to stand on their own.
“As previously stated, all averments about defendant Cokus are material as they bolster the punitive damages claim. Each claim is about something that defendant Cokus did or that his actions harmed the plaintiff, so as to illustrate how outrageous the conduct was,” per the brief.
For counts of civil rights violations under the 4th & 14th Amendments, false arrest and imprisonment, abuse of process and punitive damages, the plaintiff is seeking against all defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined by the Court, plus interest, attorney fees, and costs, additional equitable and legal relief the Court deems proper and a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Lawrence E. Bolind Jr. in Imperial.
The defendants are represented by Paul D. Krepps and Morgan M.J. Randle of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-00829
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com