• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Case 2:06-cv-01050-GLL-RCM Document 35 Filed 01/02/08 Page 1 of 58 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOSHUA A. GRIMM, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Civil Action No. 06-1050 ) Judge Lancaster CITY OF UNIONTOWN, UNIONTOWN ) Magistrate Judge Mitchell POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF OF ) POLICE KYLE SNEDDON, both ) individually and as Chief of Police for the ) City of Uniontown, OFFICER JONATHAN ) GRABIAK, both individually and as a ) police officer for the City of Uniontown, ) and OFFICER MICHAEL GARROW, both ) individually and as a police officer for the ) City of Uniontown, ) Defendants. ) ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION I. Recommendation It is respectfully recommended that the motion for summary judgment submitted on behalf of Defendants (Docket No. 23) be granted. II. Report Plaintiff, Joshua A. Grimm, a Captain employed with the United States Army, brings this civil rights action against Defendants, the City of Uniontown, its police department, the chief of police at the time (Kyle Sneddon) and two police officers (Jonathan Grabiak and Michael Garrow), arising out of events that occurred on August 7-8, 2004, when he was arrested outside a social establishment. He states that, by arresting him and placing a phone call to his battalion commander and saying that he was being charged with public intoxication and disorderly conduct (charges which were withdrawn almost immediately after they were filed), the Defendants caused Case 2:06-cv-01050-GLL-RCM Document 35 Filed 01/02/08 Page 2 of 58 the following events to occur: he received a formal administrative reprimand; was permanently relieved of his position as Commander of Bravo Company; was forced to sign in and out on a daily basis and provide appointment slips or proof of appointments to account for his whereabouts; was assigned humiliating and degrading tasks; and was denied career-advancing opportunities including promotions and transfers. He alleges that the Defendants’ actions violated his rights under the First Amendment (free speech and the right to be free from retaliation for exercising constitutionally protected rights), the Fifth Amendment (exercising his right to remain silent) and the Fourteenth Amendment (procedural and substantive due process). In addition to his civil rights claims, he also alleges claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with a business contract, negligence, gross negligence, negligent hiring/training/supervision and retention under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as well as violations of certain rights guaranteed under the Pennsylvania Constitution. In an amended complaint filed on March 26, 2007, Plaintiff adds a claim for abuse of process under Pennsylvania law. Presently before this Court for disposition is a motion for summary judgment, filed on behalf of the Defendants. For the reasons that follow, the motion should be granted. Facts Plaintiff, Captain Joshua A. Grimm, is an Airborne Ranger and a Commissioned Officer in the United States Army. (Grimm Dep. at 46, 48.)1 He is the recipient of multiple meritorious service and achievement medals, some of which include two national defense service medals, global war on terrorism service medal, a parachute badge and a Ranger Tab. (Grimm Dep. at 1 Defs.’ App. (Docket No. 22) Ex. A. 2 Case 2:06-cv-01050-GLL-RCM Document 35 Filed 01/02/08 Page 3 of 58 283.) He has honorably served his country since the age of eighteen when entered military service in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard. A few months after Plaintiff entered military service, he began his career as a soldier when he left for basic training. (Grimm Dep. at 11.) On August 7, 2004, Plaintiff, who had a top secret security clearance, was in command Bravo Company at Fort Meade in Maryland and responsible for sixty-five to seventy soldiers and civilians, had a half a million dollar budget and was directly responsible for eighty million dollars in assets. (Grimm Dep. at 278, 281; Lanzillotta Dep. Ex. 4.2) The Wedding Plaintiff obtained leave to return to Uniontown to attend a wedding on August 7, 2004. (Grimm Dep. at 36.) After attending the wedding, Plaintiff drove to a reception at a wedding hall in the City of Uniontown with his girlfriend, Chang Hee Lee, his daughter, his brother Joseph Grimm (“Josie”) and his brother Robert Eugene Grimm II (“Gene”). (Grimm Dep. at 41-42.) Both Plaintiff and his brother Josie–a Captain in the Marine Corps–were in full military dress uniform. (Grimm Dep. at 43.) Plaintiff did not have any alcoholic beverages prior to the wedding dinner. In between the end of dinner and the time he left the reception he had no more than five 12-ounce cups of beer, a single shot of hard liquor and one-half of a sloe gin drink. (Grimm Dep. at 57.) He had pre-arranged for his brother Josie to be the designated driver. (Grimm Dep. at 58-60.) He did not believe himself to be over the legal limit for the consumption of alcohol and driving within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (Grimm Dep. at 60-61.) After the reception, Plaintiff drove with his brother Josie, his brother Gene and Chang 2 Defs.’ App. Ex. B. 3 Case 2:06-cv-01050-GLL-RCM Document 35 Filed 01/02/08 Page 4 of 58 Hee to the Mount Vernon Inn located at 180 West Main Street in Uniontown, Pennsylvania. They arrived somewhere between 12:00 and 12:20. (Grimm Dep. at 61, 67.) Plaintiff remained at the Mount Vernon Inn for an hour to an hour and a half. While there he had a total of two to three 12-ounce beers. (Grimm Dep. at 72.) At the Mount Vernon Inn, Plaintiff took off his dress coat and put it on a chair at the table where he was sitting. (Grimm Dep. at 74.) At one point, Plaintiff went to the restrooms with Chang Hee. While standing alone outside the restroom, Plaintiff was approached by one or two security guards who told him that the police had been called and that he had to leave. (Grimm Dep. at 76-77.) Plaintiff told the security guards that he did not want any trouble and that he had to go get his coat and the rest of his party and would leave. However, the security guards escorted him outside immediately. (Grimm Dep. at 77-78.) Henry Hatfield was the manager of the Mount Vernon Inn. He was in charge of the bouncers and security staff and was responsible for addressing any trouble that arose at the bar. (Hatfield Dep. at 7-8.)3 Hatfield was working on the night of August 7, 2004. There were approximately seven to eight security staff members on duty that night. (Hatfield Dep. at 8-9.) At some point, he was called to the side door, where he observed a conflict between a bouncer and some military personnel. The security guard told him that the individual he was having a conflict with was drunk. (Hatfield Dep. at 12, 14.) Hatfield started to talk to the individual, but another military man approached and said he was “in charge” of the man who had been described as drunk. Hatfield said that they all needed to go back to the tables and sit down. (Hatfield Dep. at 15-16.) They did so, but ten minutes 3 Defs.’ App. Ex. D. 4 Case 2:06-cv-01050-GLL-RCM Document 35 Filed 01/02/08 Page 5 of 58 later there was another conflict involving the drunk man in military dress. He was arguing with the bouncer on the inside of the bar. At this point, Hatfield informed the man that he and his friends had to leave. (Hatfield Dep. at 17.) The two men went out the side entrance, but immediately came back in through the front entrance. (Hatfield Dep. at 18-19.) Hatfield states that he confronted them at the front door and that they were screaming “I need to get my jacket.” In his words, a “tussle” broke out and he called the police from his cell phone. (Hatfield Dep. at 20-21.) The man came at Hatfield as though he wanted to fight him. (Hatfield Dep. at 48.) Plaintiff states that, outside in the parking lot, he again told security guards that he had to go back into the bar to retrieve his jacket that he had left at the table. He then walked to the main entrance and attempted to gain access there, but the security guards told him that he could not go in. (Grimm Dep. at 79, 81.) The security guards again told him that the police were on their way. (Grimm Dep. at 82.) Plaintiff considered himself only to be minimally under the influence of alcohol at that point. He does not know if he was having any difficulty speaking or if he was speaking in a slurred manner. He denies having any difficulty walking or moving about. (Grimm Dep. at 81-82.) Plaintiff continued to try to convince the security guards to let him back into the bar to retrieve his coat. (Grimm Dep. at 83-84.) He explains that the missing military jacket had the original medals on it that the Colonels pinned on him when he was awarded them. (Grimm Dep. at 98.) After learning that the security guards were not going to let him back in and were threatening him with the police, Plaintiff left the Mount Vernon Inn with a high school friend to 5 Case 2:06-cv-01050-GLL-RCM Document 35 Filed 01/02/08 Page 6 of 58 go up the street a few blocks to a restaurant.

Load more

  58

Copy Link