SCRANTON – After a federal judge opined she would dismiss a lawsuit from a former member of the Scranton Police Department, who claimed her confidential personnel file and personal contact information were leaked without her knowledge as part of discovery in an unrelated case, that plaintiff voluntarily dropped her case.
Bryanna Gifford of Old Forge first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 26, 2022 versus the City of Scranton and the Scranton Police Department.
“The plaintiff was a police officer with the Scranton Police Department between March 20, 2017 and June 23, 2020. On Aug. 7, 2020, unknown to the plaintiff, a letter was sent by the defendants’ legal counsel Jenna Kraycer Tuzze to Duane Saunders. Saunders is a plaintiff in an unrelated matter against the City of Scranton and the Scranton Police Department and as part of the discovery requested by Saunders, the City of Scranton and the Scranton Police Department sent confidential information regarding the plaintiff,” the suit said.
“Gifford is a non-party to the suit involving Saunders and any information about her was and remains irrelevant to Saunders’ case. Upon information and belief, the information sent by the City of Scranton and the Scranton Police Department to Saunders was irrelevant to Saunders’ pending action against the City of Scranton. Upon information and belief, the circumstances surrounding Saunders’ case dealt with a DUI that he was charged with prior to the plaintiff being employed by the Scranton Police Department.”
The plaintiff added that in an enclosure to the letter addressed to Saunders, information released by the defendants included portions of the plaintiff’s confidential employment file and contained without redaction of any kind including, but not limited to, plaintiff’s cell phone number, address and social media accounts – and that at no time did the defendants seek a protective order to protect the plaintiff’s privacy and confidential information.
“The plaintiff’s confidential information, specifically, but not limited to, her cellular telephone number and address, was then disseminated on various social media outlets by Saunders. As a result of the dissemination by the defendants, the plaintiff and her family have been harassed and her privacy has been invaded further,” the suit stated.
“Additionally, the plaintiff has suffered extreme emotional distress, which requires medical treatment in the past and into the future. Further, the plaintiff has to live with the fear of reprisal as a result of the dissemination of this confidential information that was released by the defendants. The dissemination resulted in harassing phone calls, text messages, social media messages and drive-by intimidation at her and her family’s homes resulting in reports being made to the police.”
The City of Scranton and the Scranton Police Department motioned to dismiss the complaint on Feb. 18, 2022.
“Based on those alleged facts, plaintiff brings the present lawsuit alleging that defendants violated her constitutional and civil rights (Count I) and intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon her (Count II). Plaintiff, however, has not named Duane Saunders in the present lawsuit, the individual who purportedly disseminated her confidential information. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim,” the defendants’ motion stated.
“In accordance with local rules, plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against defendants, plaintiff has failed to name Duane Saunders, the individual that actually disseminated plaintiff’s confidential information, and defendants are entitled to immunity. Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff does not concur in this motion.”
The plaintiff’s counsel filed an opposing brief to the dismissal motion on March 25, 2022, arguing that a constitutional rights violation did occur and thus, the Court must deny the motion with respect to the defendants’ immunity argument.
“In examining the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the plaintiff has alleged that defendants had a policy or custom of disseminating personal and other information from personnel files that placed those officers in special danger based. The defendants knew of should have known the risks of disseminating that information to a pro se litigant without any protective provisions,” the plaintiff’s opposing brief stated.
“If the allegations contained in the complaint are established at trial, the verdict in their favor would be a judicial determination of willful misconduct on the part of the individual defendant charged. Plaintiff has adequately set forth in her complaint claims demonstrating willful misconduct on the part of the defendants, which strips the defendants of their statutory immunity. Defendants’ motion to dismiss should therefore be denied, or in the alternative, plaintiff should be permitted to amend their complaint with respect to Count II.”
In a memorandum opinion issued on Aug. 5, 2022, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
“Although Gifford contends that the SPD’s actions ‘revolve around…the Administration of the Police Department’s employees and their privacy rights,’ it is unclear how such allegations afford an exception to this Court’s previous decisions. Further, Gifford provides no legal support for her contention that the SPD is a proper party in this case and the Court struggles to find any supporting precedent. Thus, as a police department is not amenable to suit under Section 1983, Gifford’s claims against the SPD shall be dismissed,” Mehalchick said.
“Gifford limits her claims against the City to the singular incident of the distribution of her personnel information in one case. Thus, she has failed to allege that the dissemination of personnel information in an unredacted manner is a policy or custom that the City employs. As such, Gifford fails to allege that the City undertook any action that could have deprived her of her privacy rights. Therefore, Gifford has failed to allege the City’s liability under Monell and her claims against it shall be dismissed.”
Mehalchick added that Gifford failed to show her privacy was invaded by the informational disclosures at issue, nor had she pled her state law claims with sufficient support.
“Gifford’s telephone number, address, and social media accounts do not fall under any category of constitutionally protected personal information. First, this information is non-intimate, meaning it was not related to sexuality, medical records or financial information. Next, Gifford’s telephone number, address and social media accounts are all public information and thus are not entitled to constitutional protection. Gifford has not alleged that any of the information that was distributed from her personnel file was sufficiently intimate or private to rise to the level of a constitutionally-protected privacy interest. Thus, Gifford has failed to state a claim under either the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment regarding her right to privacy,” Mehalchick said.
“As the Court finds that Gifford’s federal claims should be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear Gifford’s state law claim. Where a district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. Whether a court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction is within its discretion. The Court finds nothing in the record to distinguish this case from the ordinary one, and thus the balance of factors ‘point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.”
Mehalchick ordered the claims against defendant Scranton Police Department were dismissed with prejudice – while the claims against defendant City of Scranton were dismissed without prejudice, and further stipulated that the plaintiff would be granted 28 days to file an amended complaint.
On Oct. 20, 2022, Mehalchick indicated that the prior conditional dismissal handed down in August may soon become final.
“On Aug. 5, 2022, this court entered a memorandum and order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss and directed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 28 days of the date of the order. It is hereby ordered that within 10 days of the date of this order that plaintiff show cause why she has failed to file an amended complaint as directed in this Court’s order. Failure to respond to this order or file an amended complaint may result in this case being dismissed,” Mehalchick said.
Despite Mehalchick’s order, the plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by Oct. 30, 2022.
UPDATE
After Mehalchick ordered on April 17 that the plaintiff had 10 days to explain why they did not file an amended complaint or respond to the order to show cause, the plaintiff then chose to voluntarily discontinue her case the very same day.
“And now comes the plaintiff, Bryanna Gifford, by and through her attorneys Jason J. Mattioli, Esq. and Michael J. Ossont, Esq. of the Mattioli Law Firm and Michael R. Goffer, Esq. of the Law Offices of Goffer & Cimini and discontinues this action against the defendants,” the notice of discontinuance stated.
The plaintiff was represented by Jason J. Mattioli and Michael J. Ossont of The Mattioli Law Firm, plus Michael R. Goffer of the Law Office of Goffer & Cimini, all in Scranton.
The defendants were represented by Matthew G. Boyd of Ufberg & Associates, also in Scranton.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania 3:22-cv-00137
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com