PITTSBURGH – The Borough of Brookville is seeking to dismiss litigation from a Clarion County woman, who alleged that a now-former member of the Brookville Police Department sent her salacious messages through social media and when his advances were rebuffed, stalked and sexually assaulted her.
A.B. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 11 versus the Borough of Brookville and Justin C. Miller, former police officer of the Brookville Police Department.
“In early 2022, defendant Miller requested to be ‘friends’ with plaintiff on the social media platform Facebook, and plaintiff accepted defendant Miller’s friend request. Soon after the two became ‘Facebook friends,’ defendant Miller obtained plaintiff’s social media ‘SnapChat’ user name through Facebook. Defendant Miller requested to add plaintiff as his ‘friend’ on SnapChat where he began sending plaintiff messages that were sexual in nature,” the suit said.
“Soon after, plaintiff blocked defendant Miller on SnapChat, but then defendant Miller used his business SnapChat account and continued harassing plaintiff with frequent messages. During this same time, a marked Brookville police cruiser pulled into plaintiff’s driveway in the middle of the night. This caused plaintiff particular concern as her home is not located in the Brookville Police Department’s jurisdiction. Upon information and belief, the marked Brookville police cruiser was driven by defendant Miller as a tactic to stalk and harass plaintiff.”
The suit added that on multiple occasions, the plaintiff noticed that a Brookville police cruiser would often follow her as she was driving. Upon information and belief, the Brookville police cruiser following her on the road was being operated by defendant Miller, again, as a tactic to stalk and harass the plaintiff.
“On March 18, 2022, [A.B.] was at Sheetz located at 300 West Main Street, Brookville, PA 15825, when she was approached by defendant Miller, who was wearing his Brookville police officer uniform. Upon information and belief, defendant Miller was stalking/following plaintiff in order to approach her in person. Defendant Miller then approached plaintiff from behind and groped her buttocks and groin area. Plaintiff, in shock, turned around and moved away from defendant Miller, as he asked her why she was being a ‘prude,” the suit stated.
“Immediately after the assault occurred, plaintiff filed a report with the State Police; however, defendant Miller was still permitted to work for the Brookville Police Department for two more weeks. After that, defendant Miller was put on paid leave until he ultimately resigned from his position. As a result of the assault, defendant Miller was charged criminally with the following: Indecent assault without consent of other, harassment – lewd, threatening language and harassment – subject other to physical contact. On March 1, 2023, defendant Miller accepted a guilty plea, being convicted of simple assault. Upon information and belief, defendant Miller harassed, stalked, and assaulted other women, both as a Brookville police officer and when he was scheduled to work at Brookville High School.”
UPDATE
The Borough of Brookville motioned to dismiss the complaint on Sept. 5, for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted.
“Plaintiff alleges that Borough of Brookville failed to properly train and supervise its employees. For a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must provide evidence that the defendant was acting under the color of state law and a constitutional violation was caused by their conduct. A municipality may be liable under Section 1983 ‘if the governmental body itself ‘subjects’ a person to a deprivation of rights or ‘causes’ a person ‘to be subjected’ to such deprivation. A plaintiff must also show that a decision-maker had notice that a constitutional violation could occur and acted with deliberate indifference to the risk in order to establish a municipality’s liability based upon a practice or custom,” according to the dismissal motion.
“Plaintiff makes vague factually unsupported allegations that the Borough knew of previous similar instances by officer defendant and that the current sexual harassment/discrimination policy is not up to par. Plaintiff’s complaint only iterates unsubstantiated claims. Plaintiff fails to ‘raise a right to relief above the speculative level.’ Plaintiff only states conclusions and fails to provide facts as required. The complaint is insufficient of facts that could plausibly suggest that the Borough’s training was inadequate or that a system of constitutional violations occurred. A plaintiff must ‘articulate how the conduct is sufficiently similar to establish the pattern. Pleading that the Borough was aware of similar behavior from officer defendant is not enough. The complaint needed to contain ‘enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element[s].’ Statements that are merely conclusory will not suffice.”
The motion asserted that the plaintiff also fails to make a claim for failure to supervise.
“Here, plaintiff fails to provide facts that demonstrate a supervisor’s involvement other than a boilerplate allegation that the Borough of Brookville, and not a supervisor, failed to act. Additionally, plaintiff did not purport anything other than conclusory statements that would show that there was a pattern of similar incident in which would have put any supervisor on notice. Nor did plaintiff provide averments that a supervisor’s inaction communicated a message of approval. As stated above, plaintiff has failed to properly plead any Section 1983 claims against defendant Borough of Brookville. To this end, plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to support any of the alleged claims. It is required that all complaints set forth sufficient factual matter to show that the claim alleged is facially plausible. The court need not accept inferences drawn by plaintiff, nor draw inferences themselves, if they are unsupported by the facts as set forth in the complaint,” according to the dismissal motion.
For counts of violating the plaintiff’s due process rights and implementation of municipal policies and practices that directly violate constitutional rights, failure to implement municipal policies to avoid constitutional deprivations and failure to train and supervise employees under color of state law, the plaintiff is seeking the following relief:
• A judgment against all defendants jointly and severally, awarding compensatory damages to the plaintiff in an amount to be determined by a jury and/or the Court;
• A judgment against defendant Miller awarding punitive damages to the plaintiff, in an amount to be determined by a jury and/or the Court;
• A monetary award for attorneys’ fees and the costs of this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988; and,
• Any other relief that this Court deems to be just, proper and equitable.
The plaintiff is represented by Sara J. Watkins of Robert Peirce & Associates, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Robert J. Marino and Deja’ L. Bryant of Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, plus Trisha A. Gill and Bridget Fitzpatrick of Litchfield Cavo, also all in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-00793
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com