Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-09-02534/USCOURTS-ca3-09-02534-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 09-2534

 

ALFREDO DOMENECH; IVAN SERRANO, 

 APPELLANTS

v.

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; JUDITH RUBINO, Individually and in her

professional capacity as Assistant District Attorney with Defendant City of

Philadelphia's District Attorney's Office; LEON LUBIEJEWSKI, #743

Individually and in his Professional Capacity as a Detective in Defendant City of

Philadelphia's Police Department; OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF

PHILADELPHIA; JOHN DOE DETECTIVES 1-3, Individually

 and in their Professional Capacities as Detectives in Defendant City of

Philadelphia's Police Department

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

District Court No. 2-06-cv-01325

District Judge: The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick

 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

March 11, 2010

Before: AMBRO, SMITH, and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges

(Filed: April 1, 2010)

 

 JUDGMENT ORDER

 

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Case: 09-2534 Document: 003110085437 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2010
2

In 1988, Alfredo Domenech and Ivan Serrano were convicted by a

Philadelphia jury of murdering Juan Martinez. Although their convictions were

affirmed on direct appeal, their petitions for state collateral relief succeeded, and a

new trial was granted in 2005. After the Philadelphia District Attorney decided

not to retry the case, Domenech and Serrano filed this civil rights action in the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. They alleged

that the City of Philadelphia and various employees of the City’s Police

Department violated their constitutional rights by, inter alia, withholding

exculpatory evidence and maliciously prosecuting them for murder. After

discovery closed, the City defendants successfully moved for summary judgment. 

Domenech and Serrano appeal, arguing that the District Court erred because it

failed to apply the proper standard for ruling on a motion for summary judgment

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 

“We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s grant of summary

judgment” and “apply the same standard that the District Court should have

applied.” Shuman ex rel Shertzer v. Penn Manor Sch. Dist., 422 F.3d 141, 146 (3d

Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted). After a review of the briefs and the record,

including the District Court’s thorough Memorandum, we find no error in the

District Court’s application of Rule 56. Accordingly, it is now hereby

ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the judgment of the District Court entered April

Case: 09-2534 Document: 003110085437 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2010
3

23, 2009, be and the same is hereby AFFIRMED. All of the above in accordance

with the opinion of this Court. Costs taxed against the Appellants.

By the Court:

 /s/ D. Brooks Smith 

U.S. Circuit Judge

Date: April 1, 2010

Case: 09-2534 Document: 003110085437 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/01/2010