2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-4-2014

Adrienne Young v. City of Pittsburgh

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-2469

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Adrienne Young v. City of Pittsburgh" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 371.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/371
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 13-2469

_________________

ADRIENNE YOUNG,

 Appellant

v.

CITY OF PITTSBURGH; COLLEEN BRUST; REYNE KACSUTA; 

THOMAS NEE; MICHAEL FLYNN; NATHAN HARPER, Commander; 

THOMAS MCCAFFREY; MARYLIN LAHOOD; COLLEEN SYPOLT; 

LINDA FRANCIS; DEBBIE PUC; DAN TRBOVICH; PAUL LARKIN; 

CHARLES HENDERSON

___________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 11-cv-00650)

District Judge: Honorable Cathy Bissoon

____________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 7, 2014

Before: RENDELL, SMITH and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: April 4, 2014)

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

Adrienne Young appeals the District Court’s summary judgment in favor of the 

City of Pittsburgh and individual Pittsburgh police officers (collectively, City 

Defendants), and an order dismissing her claims against seven Allegheny County 
2

probation officers (County Defendants).1 We will affirm.

I

This case arises out of four arrests of Plaintiff Young by Pittsburgh Police. 

Because Young’s challenge to the District Court’s summary judgment depends on the 

historical and procedural facts of the case, we recount them in some detail.

The trouble began for Young around 2:30 a.m. on May 13, 2008, as she drove her 

Chevrolet Cobalt in the Friendship area of Pittsburgh. Officer Colleen Brust was on 

patrol that morning when she saw Young’s car cross the center line of a two-lane street 

and pull up alongside another car. Young then slowed down and moved back over, but as 

she did, the right front passenger side of her Chevrolet made contact with the other car’s 

driver’s side rear quarter. Officer Brust then activated the lights and sirens on her police 

cruiser and stopped both vehicles. Damage to both cars was minimal, and there were no 

injuries. 

After Officer Brust effectuated the traffic stop, Young got out of her car and told 

Brust that the other driver had underage girls and drugs in his car. Brust called for 

backup, and two other officers arrived, including Sergeant Charles Henderson. Young 

returned to her vehicle while Brust spoke with the driver of the other car, Thomas 

Doswell, who had two female passengers. Doswell told Brust that Young was his exgirlfriend and that she had been harassing him since their breakup. Young claimed that 

 

1

The City Defendants are Colleen Brust, Reyne Kacsuta, Thomas Nee, Michael 

Flynn, Nathan Harper, and Charles Henderson. The County Defendants are Thomas 

McCaffrey, Marylin Lahood, Colleen Sypolt, Linda Francis, Debbie Puc, Dan Trbovich, 

and Paul Larkin.
3

after Officer Brust returned from Doswell’s car, her demeanor changed, and Brust told 

Young she was going to jail for trying to ―hurt‖ Doswell’s passengers. Young 

complained further that Brust had a male police officer pat her down, and when Young 

asked why Brust could not perform the search, Brust told her to shut up and added that 

she ―would be getting three counts of aggravated assault.‖ 

Based on Brust’s observations and the recommendation of Sergeant Henderson, 

Young was arrested at the scene and charged with first-degree aggravated assault, 18 Pa. 

Cons. Stat. § 2702(a)(1); reckless endangerment of another person, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 

2705; violation of a no passing zone, 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3307; and reckless driving, 75 

Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3736. Brust noted in a deposition that before talking to either party, she 

had seen ―[Young] cross the center line and . . . get up to [Doswell’s] vehicle and attempt 

to ram her vehicle.‖ A141-42. Brust explained that she charged Young with aggravated 

assault because she could have caused serious bodily injury when she rammed Doswell’s 

car. Young was taken into custody and spent a night in the Allegheny County Jail. 

Within a few days of her arrest, Young filed a complaint against Brust with the 

City of Pittsburgh’s Office of Municipal Investigations (OMI). Several weeks later, 

Young attempted to withdraw the complaint on the advice of a private detective who 

suggested she do so ―to ensure that her ordeal with the police would come to an end.‖ 

Young Br. at 12. Pursuant to OMI policy, however, the investigation continued.2

On July 22, 2008, Young appeared for a preliminary hearing before a magistrate. 

 

2 On March 2, 2009, OMI issued its final report on Young’s complaint, 

exonerating Brust of wrongdoing in connection with the May 13, 2008 incident. 
4

After Doswell’s passengers testified and Young presented photos of the damage to the 

two cars, the magistrate cut the hearing short, calling the incident ―nothing more than a 

light fender bender‖ and giving the parties five minutes to get together to ―figure out 

where you’re going with this‖ and ―work out what charges we’re going to hold here.‖ 

A247. The parties were unable to reach a resolution, however, which prompted the 

magistrate to say:

Okay. I’ll tell you what I’m doing. It’s a garbage case. It shouldn’t have 

been here. I’m dismissing everything without prejudice, subject to re-filing. 

Get the charges good.

A248. 

In the meantime, the OMI investigation continued, and on September 16, 2008, 

Brust and Henderson were interviewed in connection with Young’s complaint. When 

interviewed by OMI, Brust and Henderson stated that they intended to refile the charges. 

Brust added that she planned to do so, at least in part, ―for [her] credibility.‖ A155. 

On October 7, 2008, Brust re-filed charges against Young for the May 13 incident. 

The charges were substantially similar as before, except that the aggravated assault 

charge was downgraded to second-degree, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2702(a)(4). Lieutenant 

Reyne Kacsuta approved the re-filed charges, which were also reviewed and approved by 

the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office. Based on the averments in the criminal 

complaint, a magistrate issued an arrest warrant for Young. 

Pursuant to the warrant, Young was arrested at her home in the predawn hours of 

October 8, 2008. Young asked if she could change her clothes before going to jail, and 
5

Kacsuta, a female officer, accompanied her to her bedroom while she did so. Young 

claims that Kacsuta watched her undress and called her a ―religious nut.‖ Although 

Kacsuta disputes that she watched Young undress or called her names, she concedes that 

she entered Young’s bedroom because Young was under arrest and it would have been 

inappropriate to allow her to move about her home unsupervised. Young was released on 

her own recognizance later that day. 

Following her second arrest, Young met with then-Pittsburgh Police Chief Nathan 

Harper to discuss her initial arrest in May and her belief that her second arrest in October 

was in retaliation for her OMI complaint. Young appeared before a magistrate on 

November 18, 2008; the aggravated assault charges were again dismissed, but the 

remaining charges were held over for trial.

About six weeks later, Young called the Zone 5 police station and complained that 

Doswell had been harassing her with repeated phone calls. Detective Thomas Nee 

investigated the complaint, obtained phone records, and determined that Doswell had, in 

fact, called Young. In the course of his investigation, however, Detective Nee also 

discovered that Young had made phone calls to a number registered to Doswell, in spite 

of the fact that in July 2008 Doswell had obtained a protection from abuse order that 

prohibited Young from contacting him. 

Nee discussed his findings with his boss, Kacsuta, who told him Young had 

violated the order and should be arrested. Nonetheless, Nee was unsure that probable 

cause existed to arrest Young for indirect criminal contempt, so he sought advice from 
6

Assistant District Attorney David Spurgeon, who recommended further investigation. 

Nee then called Doswell to see if Young had contacted him. Doswell refused to answer 

Nee directly, but confirmed that the number belonged to him and that the phone was in 

his possession. Doswell’s refusal to cooperate gave Nee pause, but Kacsuta continued to 

pressure him to obtain a warrant. Nee talked to another assistant district attorney, 

Rebecca Auld, who was prosecuting the charges stemming from the May 13 incident; 

she, in turn, spoke with her supervisor, who recommended that Nee not obtain a warrant, 

although she did confirm that Young had violated the court order. 

In light of Nee’s continued reluctance to file charges against Young for violating 

the order, Kacsuta ordered him to draft a report explaining why he had twice disregarded 

her orders to obtain a warrant for Young’s arrest. Although Nee did not want to file the 

charges, he ultimately did so on January 28, 2009, on Kacsuta’s orders. A magistrate 

approved an arrest warrant, and Young was arrested at her home ―in the middle of the 

night‖ on January 29, 2009. Kacsuta participated in the execution of the arrest warrant 

and Young again claims that Kacsuta accompanied her to her bedroom and called her a 

religious nut. Young was released on bond the same day as her arrest. The charges were 

continued until the expiration of the protection from abuse order on July 10, 2009, and 

never proceeded further. 

Young was arrested a fourth time in March 2009. This time, the impetus for the 

arrest came from Renee Taylor, one of Doswell’s passengers from the May 13, 2008 

incident, who called the Zone 5 police station complaining that she had received a 
7

threatening phone call from Young. Later that day, Taylor went to the police station to 

make a report and was interviewed by Pittsburgh Police Officer Michael Flynn. Kacsuta 

was the supervisor in the station at that time. In the affidavit of probable cause, Flynn 

stated that Taylor told him Young had been intimidating and harassing her and threatened 

to burn down her house in Wilkinsburg for not cooperating with Young’s OMI 

complaint. The affidavit also stated that Taylor believed Young was upset with Taylor for 

testifying against her; that Taylor had seen Young sitting in her car on Taylor’s street 

several times in the past week; and that Taylor had received several phone calls from a 

private number threatening her life if she did not drop the charges against Young. Flynn 

also averred that Taylor was in Pittsburgh at the time she received the phone calls.3 At the 

time he prepared his affidavit, Flynn was unaware that Taylor’s criminal history included 

several crimen falsi. 

Based on Taylor’s complaint, Young was charged with misdemeanor violations of 

intimidation of a witness, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4952(a), and terroristic threats, 18 Pa. 

Cons. Stat. § 2706(a)(1). A magistrate approved an arrest warrant, and Young was 

arrested for the fourth time, at about 2 a.m. on March 5, 2009, at her home. Once again, 

Kacsuta was part of the team serving the warrant. Young was taken to the Allegheny 

 

3

Flynn’s affidavit contained several inconsistencies. First, Flynn claimed that he 

knew Young had committed a crime from ―personal observations and victims’ 

statements‖; according to Flynn, this was a typo, and the affidavit itself did not contain 

claims that Flynn had personally observed anything. Second, Flynn stated in his 

deposition that Taylor never told him she had received a phone call threatening her life. 

Also, Flynn transposed Young’s name and Taylor’s name in part of the affidavit, which 

he corrected by filing a supplemental report later in the month. 
8

County Jail and held there for more than three weeks while she waited for an electronic 

monitoring device to become available. 

Young remained on electronic monitoring until August 2009. The following 

month, Detective Nee emailed ADA Auld and Commander Ross of the Pittsburgh Police 

and notified them that Taylor’s phone records appeared to support Young’s contention 

that she had not called Taylor on March 4, 2009. In February 2010, the District Attorney 

(DA) chose not to prosecute the charges. Finally, in February 2010, Young went to trial 

on the remaining charges from the initial May 13, 2008 incident, and was found guilty of 

the summary offense of passing where prohibited. All other charges were dismissed by 

the court. 

II

In May 2011, Young filed a complaint in the Allegheny County Court of Common 

Pleas, alleging myriad constitutional violations. Defendants removed the case to the 

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In her second 

amended complaint, Young sued the City Defendants, in various combinations, for false 

arrest and malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in 

connection with all four arrests (Counts I–VIII); retaliatory prosecution in connection 

with her last three arrests, in violation of the First Amendment (Count IX); invasion of 

privacy against Kacsuta, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and in connection with 

the October 8, 2008 arrest (Count X); and violation of her First and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights to equal protection, freedom of religion, and to petition the 
9

government, in connection with the arrests (Count XI). She also sued the County 

Defendants and several City Defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress 

(Count XII) and conspiracy to deprive her of her Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights (Count XV). Finally, Young sued the County Defendants for violating 

her Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights (Count XIII) and for wrongful 

imprisonment in connection with her detention for the fourth arrest (Count XIV). 

The District Court held a post-discovery conference on June 1, 2012. There, 

Young was represented by counsel and agreed to voluntarily dismiss her lawsuit against 

the County Defendants. Consequently, the County Defendants did not seek summary 

judgment. In her response to the City Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Young 

reiterated that she had voluntarily agreed to dismiss the claims against the County 

Defendants. The County Defendants’ attorney sent Young’s attorney a Rule 41(a) notice 

of voluntary dismissal, but it was never filed. 

In March 2013, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the City 

Defendants. At about the same time, Young’s attorney sought to withdraw because 

Young had changed her mind about dismissing the County Defendants and ordered him 

not to file the notice of dismissal, despite having already agreed to dismiss the claims 

against the County Defendants. According to the District Court, Young’s counsel also 

―explained that discovery had revealed no plausible theory of recovery against the 

County Defendants.‖ Order Granting Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, April 23, 

2013, ECF No. 98. The District Court subsequently allowed Young’s counsel to 
10

withdraw and also granted the County Defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement 

agreement. This timely appeal followed.4

III

We review the District Court’s summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts and 

making all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 

Montone v. City of Jersey City, 709 F.3d 181, 189 (3d Cir. 2013). Summary judgment is 

appropriate when ―there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.‖ Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

The District Court properly granted summary judgment on Young’s claims for 

false arrest and malicious prosecution because probable cause existed for all four arrests. 

The absence of probable cause is an essential element of both false arrest and malicious 

prosecution claims, and such claims cannot proceed if probable cause existed—regardless 

of whether the arrests at issue were a wise or typical use of police resources. See Dowling 

v. City of Philadelphia, 855 F.2d 136, 141 (3d Cir. 1988) (―The proper inquiry in a 

section 1983 claim based on false arrest . . . is not whether the person arrested in fact 

committed the offense but whether the arresting officers had probable cause to believe 

the person arrested had committed the offense.‖); McKenna v. City of Philadelphia, 582 

F.3d 447, 461 (3d Cir. 2009) (―To prevail on a malicious prosecution claim under section 

1983, a plaintiff must show . . . the proceeding was initiated without probable 

 

4

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
11

cause . . . . ‖). 

Under the Fourth Amendment, an arrest is permissible ―where there is probable 

cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed.‖ Devenpeck v. 

Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 152 (2004). ―Whether probable cause exists depends upon the 

reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the 

time of the arrest.‖ Id. Probable cause ―requires more than mere suspicion . . . [but] does 

not require that the officer have evidence sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable 

doubt.‖ Orsatti v. N.J. State Police, 71 F.3d 480, 482–83 (3d Cir. 1995). Rather, we 

consider the existence of probable cause via a ―common sense approach‖ based on the 

totality of the circumstances, Paff v. Kaltenbach, 204 F.3d 425, 436 (3d Cir. 2000), and 

viewed from the perspective of an objectively reasonable police officer. Maryland v. 

Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003). The constitutional validity of an arrest does not 

depend on whether the accused actually committed any crime, or whether a person is 

later acquitted of the crime of arrest. Wright v. City of Philadelphia, 409 F.3d 595, 602 

(3d Cir. 2005). 

A district court may conclude ―that probable cause exists as a matter of law if the 

evidence, viewed most favorably to Plaintiff, reasonably would not support a contrary 

factual finding.‖ Merkle v. Upper Dublin School Dist., 211 F.3d 782, 788–89 (3d Cir. 

2000). Where an arrest is made pursuant to a warrant—as were Young’s last three 

arrests—the plaintiff challenging probable cause must show ―by a preponderance of the 

evidence: (1) that the police officer knowingly and deliberately, or with a reckless 
12

disregard for the truth, made false statements or omissions that create a falsehood in 

applying for a warrant; and (2) that such statements or omissions are material, or 

necessary, to the finding of probable cause.‖ Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781, 786–87 (3d 

Cir. 2000). Here, even if Young could satisfy the first hurdle, a doubtful proposition at 

best, she would fail on the second. Therefore, based on the record before us, and viewed 

in the light most favorable to Young, we agree with the District Court that probable cause 

existed for all four of Young’s arrests. Accordingly, her claims for false arrest and 

malicious prosecution (Counts I-VIII) were properly rejected.5

Young also challenges Kacsuta’s observation of her as she changed clothes in her 

bedroom upon her second arrest as an invasion of privacy under the Fourth Amendment 

(Count X). As the District Court correctly concluded, however, ―[b]ecause [Young] was 

the subject of a lawful custodial arrest,‖ Kacsuta’s actions did not violate the Fourth 

Amendment, and Young’s ―apparent position that she should have been allowed access to 

her bedroom without officer supervision [while under arrest] is, to put it bluntly, absurd.‖ 

No. 11-CV-650, 2013 WL 1290950 at *10 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2013). 

Nor do we find any error in the District Court’s summary judgment on Young’s 

equal protection claim (Count XI). ―The fact that there was no Fourth Amendment 

violation does not mean that one was not discriminatorily selected‖ for law enforcement 

action. Bradley v. United States, 299 F.3d 197, 205 (3d Cir. 2002); see also Carrasca v. 

 

5

The existence of probable cause also dooms Young’s First Amendment 

retaliatory prosecution claim (Count IX). See Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 265–66 

(2006).
13

Pomeroy, 313 F.3d 828, 836 (3d Cir. 2002). However, it is axiomatic that an equal 

protection claim in this context requires the plaintiff to show the official action ―(1) had a 

discriminatory effect and (2) [was] motivated by a discriminatory purpose.‖ Bradley, 299 

F.3d at 205. Here, Young has cited no evidence of record to suggest discriminatory 

effect, so this claim cannot proceed. 

Finally, because Young did not present evidence that she suffered a constitutional 

violation, summary judgment was appropriate on her claims for supervisory liability, 

municipal liability, and conspiracy to violate her constitutional rights. For the reasons 

stated in its opinion, the District Court also appropriately granted summary judgment for 

Defendants on Young’s state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress 

(Count XII). We have considered the parties’ arguments on these points and conclude 

that no further analysis is necessary. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s 

summary judgment in favor of the City Defendants.

IV

Apart from her challenge to the District Court’s summary judgment in favor of the 

City Defendants, Young appeals the District Court’s order dismissing the County 

Defendants. That order was based not on an adjudication of the merits, but rather on 

Young’s representation to the Court that she would voluntarily dismiss the County 

Defendants. Young claims that the District Court erred when it dismissed the County 

Defendants, but this argument is unavailing. Young does not dispute that she orally 

represented to the District Court that she would voluntarily dismiss the County 
14

Defendants, a position she reiterated in subsequent court filings, see Dkt. 83 at 10. The 

District Court, adverse parties, and Young’s attorney all reasonably relied upon that 

representation, and we hold that promise is enforceable. See, e.g., Edwards v. Wyatt, 335 

F.3d 261, 276–77 (3d Cir. 2003) (describing the elements of promissory estoppel).6Thus, 

the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the County Defendants.7

* * *

On the record presented, the District Court did not err when it concluded as a 

matter of law that probable cause existed for all four of Adrienne Young’s arrests. That 

holding doomed most of Young’s claims, and for the reasons we and the District Court 

stated, her other claims against the City Defendants also fail. As for Young’s claims 

against the County Defendants, judgment was properly entered against her because she 

had agreed to dismiss them. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District 

Court in all respects. 

 

6

In addition, given Young’s oral representation to the District Court and to 

adverse parties, dismissal arguably also would have been proper under a contract theory, 

see, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 94, or pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Role v. Eureka Lodge No. 434, 402 F.3d 314, 318 (2d 

Cir. 2005). 

7 Although we find no abuse of discretion by the District Court, we note that this 

case highlights the importance of having a court reporter available to record promises 

made by any party. To avoid problems such as the one encountered here, district courts 

should present to the parties a Rule 41(a) stipulation of dismissal that can be signed 

contemporaneously with the oral promise and promptly filed thereafter.