PHILADELPHIA – Counsel for several Philadelphia Police Department officers counters that a malicious prosecution lawsuit filed against them, in reference to a 2018 drug arrest where the charges were later dropped, is erroneous since the defendants were not involved in the events at issue.
Matthew Pippen first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 1 versus Philadelphia Police Department officers Scott Schweizer, Erik Pross, Patrick Banning, Michael Szelagowski and John Doe officers 1-10. All parties reside in Pennsylvania.
“Plaintiff was arrested by Philadelphia police officers in 2018, including the above-named defendants in relation to a narcotics investigation within the City of Philadelphia. The plaintiff was arrested and charged with purchase/receipt of narcotics and simple possession,” the suit stated.
“On April 3, 2019, all charges against the plaintiff were dismissed in Philadelphia Municipal Court. Plaintiff contends the defendants lacked probable cause to arrest, detain and prosecute him, as he was not participating in any criminal activity and had not sold, possessed, nor purchased drugs.”
Pippen said he was searched, seized, detained, arrested and incarcerated.
“After arresting plaintiff, defendant and other law enforcement agents at his direction, completed police paperwork and attested probable cause existed to believe plaintiff committed a criminal act and both should be criminally charged for violating the law. Defendants and other law enforcement agents at their direction, completed police paperwork regarding this incident and forwarded it to the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office for prosecuting the plaintiff,” per the suit.
“Based on the claims made by defendants, including his observations which were the entire basis for the police paperwork generated, plaintiff was charged. Plaintiff was arrested, searched, seized and prosecuted based upon alleged observations by defendants. Plaintiff avers he was not violating any laws before or at the time he was arrested. Plaintiff never spoke with, interacted, physically touched, nor communicated with in any way, any person trying to buy narcotics and plaintiff never possessed any illegal drugs. Plaintiff, at no time during this investigation, was participating in criminal activity, nor did he exchange any money or narcotics with any persons.”
UPDATE
An attorneys for the officers countered in a motion to dismiss filed April 29 that not only did the plaintiff fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, but that the defendant officers had no involvement in the disputed arrest.
“Plaintiff fails to provide any information about the arrests themselves aside from the officers he alleges were involved. Plaintiff does not provide a date, time, or location of these arrests. Instead, he simply provided docket numbers that do not lead to any information and the dates his charges were ‘withdrawn/dismissed,” the dismissal motion stated, in part.
“Plaintiff has not supplied the most basic facts – date and location of incident – to inform the defendants which narcotics investigation the plaintiff’s alleged malicious prosecution is stemming from. Rather than trouble himself with including such seemingly essential and routine description of his claims, plaintiff seems to request that defendants seek out the apparently expunged court records and work backwards from there to identify the actual time and location of their alleged misconduct.”
Such scant information, defense counsel states, leaves the defendants unable to mount a proper defense.
Furthermore, the motion states that the defendant officers were not involved in these events.
“The plaintiff generally attributes his alleged malicious prosecution to all four defendants as well as John/Jane Doe Officers 1-10, but plaintiff fails to state how each individual defendant led to his arrest. Plaintiff does not plead a single fact as to the actual involvement of any of the named or John Doe defendants,” the dismissal motion states.
“Indeed, plaintiff generically lumps these individuals together in an attempt to blame all of them for his alleged harms, but pleads no facts as to any of their whereabouts during the incident, their actions or which paperwork they allegedly completed, which proceedings the defendants initiated or any other fact which could reasonably put them on notice of the specifics of his allegations against them. Such generalized allegations are specific to no defendant and thus cannot state a claim against any defendant. These defendants should not be forced to defend themselves in court for allegations that are so demonstrably boilerplate.”
For a count of malicious prosecution through violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the plaintiff is seeking individually, jointly and severally, compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages in excess of $150,000, plus attorney’s fees, costs, and interest, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by David Wesley Cornish of Cornerstone Legal Group, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Assistant City Solicitor Joseph A. Sengoba, of the City of Philadelphia’s Law Department.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-01550
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com