PHILADELPHIA – The subject of a 2018 drug arrest who filed a malicious prosecution lawsuit against several Philadelphia Police Department officers, recently settled his claims against those officers.
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.”
An attorney 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 stated, leaves the defendants unable to mount a proper defense. Furthermore, the motion stated that the defendant officers were not involved in these events.
UPDATE
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Joel H. Slomsky granted the defense’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, in a memorandum opinion issued on Nov. 22.
“Here, plaintiff contends that his charges were dismissed by the Philadelphia Municipal Court and that ‘defendants lacked probable cause to arrest, detain, and prosecute him.’ However, plaintiff does not allege any facts regarding his arrest to show that defendants lacked probable cause. He fails to provide even the most basic facts, such as the date, time, and location of his arrest. A plaintiff who ‘asserts no other facts that would shed light on the circumstances under which he was arrested, on what the officers knew or should have known at the time of arrests, or on any other factors that might have a bearing on the claims he attempts to raise’ will not survive a motion to dismiss. Additionally, plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to suggest that defendants acted maliciously or recklessly to support either his malicious prosecution claim or his request for punitive damages as sought in the complaint,” Slomsky said.
“In addition, plaintiff does not allege any facts to show that each defendant was involved in his arrest and detention. These allegations ‘must be made with appropriate particularity.’ No facts are asserted that show how each defendants was involved in his arrest or prosecution. He had ‘an obligation to state at least his own recollection of the facts of the arrests he challenges.’ For all these reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted.”
Three weeks later, on Dec. 13, plaintiff counsel voluntarily withdrew and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
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 was represented by David Wesley Cornish of Cornerstone Legal Group, in Philadelphia.
The defendants were 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