920 F. Supp. 2d 580
W.D. Pa.2013Background
- Spiker filed a second amended complaint asserting § 1983 claims (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments) and Pennsylvania tort claims against seven Allegheny County officials (DA defendants, county defendants, and probation/sheriff personnel).
- Motions to dismiss were filed by the DA defendants and county defendants; plaintiff moved for leave to file a third amended complaint; briefing and a hearing occurred in 2011–2012; a bankruptcy stay and later retention of counsel occurred.
- Plaintiff alleged two arrests: July 1, 2009 (failure to register as a sex offender) and July 2, 2009 (probation violation) resulting in 320 days’ detention pending trial after a detainer was issued.
- Allegations target actions by Jennifer DiGiovanni (ADA), Laura Ditka (ADA), Sean Kelly (detective), Jacquelyn Whittaker (probation supervisor), James Whittaker (probation), and others including Kearney, Mullen, and Rieland, focusing on registration duties and misprocedures under Megan’s Law.
- Plaintiff contends the probation office had a duty to collect/register information and forward to state police; defendants allegedly acted with motive, misapplied law, and caused unlawful arrests/detention and public reputational harm.
- Proposed third amended complaint adds Megan’s Law policy arguments and alleges Alison policies that allegedly would have required proper registration and information-sharing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants are entitled to immunity for arrest/detention actions | Spiker contends no immunity for false arrest/imprisonment and malicious prosecution. | DiGiovanni, Ditka, Kelly, Whittaker seek absolute/qualified immunity for prosecutorial/administrative actions. | Counts I–III dismissed for absolute/qualified immunity determinations; some claims survive against Whittaker only for certain third-amendment allegations. |
| Whether DiGiovanni had absolute or qualified immunity for directing arrest and related pre-indictment actions | DiGiovanni directly caused arrests, lacked immunity due to pre-indictment investigatory actions. | DiGiovanni entitled to absolute immunity for prosecutorial acts and qualified immunity for non-prosecutorial actions. | DiGiovanni is absolutely immune for initiating/continuing prosecution; qualified immunity applies to directing arrest; counts I–II as to her dismissed; third amended claims denied as to those counts. |
| Whether Ditka is entitled to absolute/qualified immunity for continuing prosecution and for encouraging actions | Ditka knowingly encouraged steps causing arrest/detention. | Ditka entitled to absolute immunity for continuing prosecution; qualified immunity for others. | Counts I and related equal protections claims against Ditka are dismissed; absolute immunity for continued prosecution; no plausible basis shown for other actions. |
| Whether Kelly is entitled to qualified immunity for false arrest/imprisonment/malicious prosecution | Kelly knew/should have known lack of probable cause; directed arrest warrant improperly. | Kelly acted with reasonable belief under section 9795.2; qualified immunity applies. | Kelly is entitled to qualified immunity for counts I–III; counts II–III dismissed; leave to amend denied as futile for those counts. |
| Whether Whittaker is entitled to absolute/qualified immunity for bench warrant/detainer and false imprisonment | Whittaker knowingly omitted material registration facts to obtain warrant/detainer. | Whittaker entitled to absolute immunity for adjudicatory acts; may be liable for executive acts. | Whittaker not entitled to absolute immunity for bench warrant/detainer; may be entitled to qualified immunity for those actions; false imprisonment claim viable in proposed third amended complaint; state law PSTCA issues resolved in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial absolute immunity for initiating/prosecuting criminal proceedings)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified immunity analysis (set forth; later modified by Pearson))
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (mutates mandatory sequencing in qualified immunity analysis)
- Egolf v. Witmer, 526 F.3d 104 (3d Cir. 2008) (avoid constitutional questions in first-impression state-law contexts)
- Montanez v. Thompson, 603 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 2010) (qualified immunity allows reasonable mistakes)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991) (pre-indictment police advice by prosecutor not absolutely immune)
- Hudak v. Foulk, No. 06-110, 2007 WL 4287760 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (abs. immunity where prosecutor secured appearance/arrest before charges)
- Orobono v. Koch, 30 F. Supp. 2d 840 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (arrest initiation linked to prosecutorial function; immunity depends on timing)
- Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772 (3d Cir. 1989) (probable cause standard in false arrest; immunity context)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (probable cause standard for arrest warrants; not absolute immunity)