PITTSBURGH – Somerset County has motioned for dismissal from a lawsuit brought by a woman who claimed that its ex-District Attorney Jeffrey Thomas sent her sexually violent text messages for months before breaking into her home and physically and sexually assaulting her, allegations that resulted in Thomas being sent to prison in August for multiple years.
Plaintiff Jane Doe first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 18, versus the Somerset County District Attorney’s Office, Somerset County and Thomas, all of Somerset.
According to the suit, in the fall of 2018, Doe and Thomas began communicating, because Thomas was interested in purchasing a vehicle from her. The lawsuit stated that Thomas eventually lost interest in making the purchase, but continued to send Doe unwanted text messages for months. In 2019, Thomas was elected to the position of District Attorney with the Somerset County District Attorney’s Office.
Doe claimed that after his appointment, Thomas continued to message her and even began to show up at the restaurant she frequented. She added that she believes one of the restaurant’s bartenders would inform Thomas when she was at the restaurant. In 2020, Doe rented an apartment from the aforementioned restaurant owner. She claimed that three days after moving in, Thomas showed up unannounced at her apartment and gained entry when her roommate went out to her vehicle.
Doe said that she is unsure how Thomas learned of her new address and said that he returned to the apartment two more times and tried to gain entry while she hid from him in the apartment. According to Doe, Thomas began to become more aggressive in his messages with her and began sending her sexually violent graphic messages.
The messages continued for months up until Sept. 18, when Thomas allegedly entered Doe’s home without permission and physically and sexually assaulted her while her child slept upstairs. Doe claimed that during the assault, she was punched and choked to the point where she thought she was going to lose consciousness.
The lawsuit stated that Thomas had a history of sexual harassment and sexual assault, information that was known to Somerset County officials. Despite this knowledge, Somerset County allegedly took no action to discipline or sanction Thomas. According to the lawsuit, this lack of action is evidence that the authorities of Somerset County either condoned or were indifferent to Thomas’ actions.
Thomas could spend the next seven years of his life in prison after convictions on six criminal charges.
Doe claimed that because of the actions of Thomas and the inaction of Somerset County and the Somerset County District Attorney’s Office, she has been made to experience pain, suffering, mental anguish, emotional trauma, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of liberty, invasion of privacy and freedom of association, loss of bodily integrity, damage to her reputation and loss of income and employment.
Doe added that she has incurred medical and psychological expenses and will continue to require the services of medical and psychological staff to recover from her injuries.
UPDATE
On Nov. 10, the Somerset County District Attorney’s Office and Somerset County filed a motion to dismiss themselves from the complaint, arguing they could not be held liable for Thomas’ actions.
“Doe does not set forth facts to support that Thomas was ‘acting under color of state law’ at the time of the attack. Doe does not allege any facts that would permit her to satisfy the necessary elements for a Section 1983 claim. Doe will not be able to set forth a valid Section 1983 claim even if she is afforded the opportunity to amend her pleading. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth, Somerset County lacks authority under the law to ‘hire, train, supervise, discipline and/or remove’ a district attorney who is an elected county official. As a matter of law any such claims against Somerset County must fail, as no amount of amending will rectify Doe’s deficiencies in making such a claim,” the dismissal motion stated.
“Doe has not set forth facts to support a Fourth Amendment claim against Somerset County. It is not clear if Doe is proceeding on a due process, or an equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Regardless of the basis for Doe’s Fourteenth Amendment claim, she has failed to satisfy the necessary elements against Somerset County. Doe argues that she has a Monell claim against Somerset County and/or a respondent superior claim for the misconduct of Thomas. Doe argues that there is a policy, custom or procedure at issue, she fails to identify sufficiently any such that could be alleged against Somerset County due restrictions under Pennsylvania Constitutional and statutes of the Commonwealth. As a result of the deficiencies, Doe’s Monell and/or respondent superior claims should be dismissed.”
The motion added that Doe’s negligence, official capacity and punitive damages claims likewise failed, in the defendants’ view.
“Doe has not identified with sufficiency the negligence claim she is alleging against Somerset County. Doe has not plead under the law and/or facts of her Complaint, a valid claim for negligence in Count V. against Somerset County. In the alternative, any claims for negligence against Somerset County are barred under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. Doe alleges ‘official capacity and individual capacity’ claims against Thomas. Somerset County is requesting that all ‘official capacity’ claims be stricken due to the lack of facts to support such a claim and due to the legal deficiencies as Thomas’ actions/inactions do not constitute an official capacity claim. Punitive damages are not recoverable against a governmental entity,” the motion continued.
For counts of violating the right to bodily integrity, unlawful seizure, excessive force, negligence, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Court, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, reasonable counsel fees and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by Walter J. Nalducci of Cutruzzula & Nalducci, in Pittsburgh.
The Somerset County defendants are represented by Mary Lou Maierhofer of Margolis Edelstein, in Hollidaysburg.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 3:23-cv-00218
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com