“There must be at least some definitive administrative determination resulting in a denial or deprivation of due process before [a plaintiff] can raise such a claim. Until there is a final decision which has practical impact on a litigant, it is not ripe for adjudication.”
How later courts described this case
- “There must be at least some definitive administrative determination resulting in a denial or deprivation of due process before [a plaintiff] can raise such a claim. Until there is a final decision which has practical impact on a litigant, it is not ripe for adjudication.”
- dismissing due process claims as unripe where terminated city employee failed to appeal CBA- mandated arbitration decision and “raise these matters in available and constitutionally adequate” state court proceedings
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HEATHER BIRD,
Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-cv-00337
V. (SAPORITO, M.J.)
Wit Bp
BOROUGH OF MOOSIC, et al., ko 8, ‘Poe,
Defendants. PER “8 ig 224 “
MEMORANDUM OV ee
This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The plaintiff, Heather Bird, is a part-time police officer for one of the two
named defendants, the Borough of Moosic. Bird was injured on the job
and applied for temporary disability benefits under the Pennsylvania
Heart and Lung Act, 53 P.S. § 637. On September 10, 2019, the second of
two named defendants, James Segilia, mayor of the Borough, summarily
denied her application for Heart and Lung benefits.
On February 25, 2020, appearing through counsel, the plaintiff
commenced this civil rights action by filing a complaint. (Doc. 1.) In her
complaint, the plaintiff claims that this summary denial of her Heart and
Lung Act benefits application violated her Fourteenth Amendment
procedural due process rights because she was deprived of a property
interest without the requisite pre- or post-deprivation due process—that
is, she was denied her Heart and Lung benefits without being provided
with adequate notice, an explanation of the evidence upon which the
Borough based its denial, or an opportunity to present her side of the
story.
On December 29, 2020, we entered an order that, among other
things, directed the parties to show cause why this case should or should
not be dismissed for lack of ripeness for adjudication. (Doc. 52.) See
generally Suburban Trails, Inc. v. N.J. Transit Corp., 800 F. 2d 361, 365
(3d Cir. 1986) (“[R]ipeness of issues for adjudication is a matter we must
raise and examine independently of the parties’ wishes.”). Both sides
have responded. (Doc. 54; Doc. 55; Doc. 56.)
Based on the record before us, it appears that on February 19, 2020,
a hearing officer was designated by the Borough to conduct an
administrative hearing on the plaintiffs claim for Heart and Lung Act
benefits, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Local Agency Law, 2 Pa. Cons.
Stat. Ann. § 553. (Doc. 54-1, at 27 n.1.) On February 27, 2020, the hearing
officer provided the plaintiff with written notice of the hearing, originally
scheduled to take place on March 27, 2020. (Doc. 39-1, at 19.) The hearing
~_9. □
was twice postponed—once due to the COVID-19 pandemic and once at
the request of plaintiff's counsel. (Id., at 26, 28.) Ultimately, the hearing
was held on August 27, 2020. On December 4, 2020, the hearing officer
issued a decision finding that the plaintiff was ineligible to receive Heart
and Lung benefits because she was a part-time, non-salaried police
officer. (Doc. 54-1, at 26-82.)
In a December 20, 2020, letter to the court regarding the hearing
officer’s decision, plaintiffs counsel noted that the hearing officer’s
adjudication report had not yet been offered to the Borough Council for
consideration, and it had not yet been accepted or adopted by the Borough
Council as a local agency decision. (Doc. 49, at 2.) See generally Lewis v.
Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 28 PPER § 28084, 1997 WL 34821379 (Pa.
Commw. Ct. Mar. 5, 1997) (holding that, under Local Agency Law, a
municipality complies with due process requirements “by: (1) appointing
a hearing officer to hold a hearing at which [the employee] was
represented by counsel and had the opportunity to cross-examine
witnesses; (2) reviewing the [hearing] officer's findings of facts,
conclusions of law and recommendation; and (3) making an independent |
ruling based on the entire record”): Romanick v. Rush Twp., 44 PPER
99, 2013 WL 1683691 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Apr. 4, 2013) (noting that
township supervisors adopted a hearing officer’s decision regarding a
police officer’s removal as police chief and demotion to patrol officer).1
Based on the posture of the plaintiff's administrative appeal, we
find her due process claims are not ripe for adjudication by this federal
district court because administrative proceedings before the Borough are
not final, and she has not yet availed herself of state court forums for
judicial review of a final administrative adjudication. See Amanio v.
Witlin, 544 F. Supp. 140, 142 (M.D. Pa. 1982) (“There must be at least
some definitive administrative determination resulting in a denial or
deprivation of due process before [a plaintiff] can raise such a claim. Until
there is a final decision which has practical impact on a litigant, it is not
ripe for adjudication.”); see also Bonilla v. City of Allentown, 359 F. Supp.
3d 281, 299 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (dismissing due process claims as premature
where former police officer’s disability pension application remained
pending after a state court reversed and remanded it to a municipal
1 The Borough Council’s minutes and agendas, which are available
to the public on the Borough’s web site, and of which we may take judicial
notice, see Perano v. Twp. of Tilden, Civil Action No. 09-00754, 2010 WL
1462367, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 12, 2010), do not reflect consideration
of any resolution adopting the hearing officer’s adjudication either.
A.
pension board for further proceedings); Isajewicz v. Bucks Cty. Dept of
Commcins, 851 F. Supp. 161, 166 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (dismissing due process
claims as unripe where terminated city employee failed to appeal CBA-
mandated arbitration decision and “raise these matters in available and
constitutionally adequate” state court proceedings); Gniotek v. City of
Philadelphia, 630 F. Supp. 827, 831-82 (E.D. Pa. 1986) (citing Amanto,
544 F. Supp. at 142, and dismissing due process claims as unripe where
underlying claims remained under review by municipal pension board).?
Accordingly, this case shall be dismissed for lack of ripeness for
adjudication.
An appropriate order follows.
Dated: February 14 , 2021 F. ,
Yoenpn F.
United States Magistrate Judge
2 The plaintiff has argued that, notwithstanding these ongoing
administrative proceedings, she has a ripe claim based for pre-
deprivation denial of due process because the Borough mayor summarily
denied her initial claim for Heart. and Lung benefits. But, as we
previously noted (see Doc. 53, at 3-4), “a procedural due process violation
is not complete unless and until the [s]tate fails to provide due process
because the state may cure a procedural deprivation by providing a later
procedural remedy.” Bonilla, 359 F. Supp. 3d at 297 (internal quotation
marks omitted). Here, that later procedural remedy is still unfolding.
EF!