Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-09-01390/USCOURTS-ca3-09-01390-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1390

___________

KEVIN PATRICK FLOOD,

Appellant

v.

SUPERVISOR TROOPER CHARLES SCHAEFER, Bdg # 8740;

CORPAL RANDY ZIMMERMAN; CORPAL JOHN BRAVIS;

TRP. DAVID SNYDER, Bdg. #6200; OTHER UNKNOWN (P.S.P.)

PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE; KEITH BRUBAKER

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania 

D.C. Civil Action No. 06-cv-0082

(Honorable Kim R. Gibson)

____________________________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

February 3, 2010

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, JORDAN and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges

(Filed: March 4, 2010)

_________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_________

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the District Court’s dismissal of Kevin Patrick Flood’s pro

se civil rights complaint. We will affirm in part and reverse in part and remand to the

District Court for further proceedings.

Case: 09-1390 Document: 003110044522 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/04/2010
2

Flood is currently an inmate at FCI-Fort Dix. He was recently arrested, tried, and

convicted on federal narcotics and firearm charges. See United States v. Flood, 339 F.

App’x 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (affirming Flood’s conviction and sentence). In April 2006,

before his trial, Flood filed a civil suit against certain members of the Pennsylvania State

Police who participated in his arrest and interrogation and against Keith Brubaker, a

police informant. Flood alleged that the defendants violated his rights under the Fourth,

Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Specifically, he alleged

that state police illegally entered his home, destroyed his personal papers, and used

improper and excessive interrogation techniques on him at the state police barracks. 

Flood also alleged that Brubaker planted drugs at Flood’s house and fed him narcotics to

weaken his resistance during the police interrogation. 

The District Court dismissed Flood’s lawsuit for failure to state a claim because

the claims, if successful, would necessarily imply the invalidity of the criminal

proceedings against him. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). We vacated

the District Court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings because the District

Court did not perform a claim-by-claim analysis of Flood’s claims as required by our

Heck jurisprudence. Flood v. Schaefer, 240 F. App’x 474, 476 (3d Cir. 2007) (per

curiam) (unpublished). On remand, Flood attempted to amend his complaint to assert that

defendants tampered with, or falsely manufactured, the audio tapes made during the

investigation of his criminal case. The District Court denied Flood’s motion, holding that

Case: 09-1390 Document: 003110044522 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/04/2010
3

the allegations, if true, would call the validity of his convictions into doubt, thus violating

the rule in Heck. Flood filed an interlocutory appeal from that order, which we dismissed

for Flood’s failure to pay the requisite fees. Flood v. Schaefer, C.A. No. 08-4659 (3d Cir.

2008). Next, the District Court, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6). Flood filed a timely notice of appeal from that order. Flood has also filed a

motion for sanctions and requesting appointment of a special master in this Court.

We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s decision to grant defendant’s

motion to dismiss. Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Pharmacia Corp., 554 F.3d 342, 346 (3d

Cir. 2009). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible when

its factual content allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant(s)

are liable for the alleged misconduct. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). 

We review the District Court’s decision denying Flood’s motion to amend his complaint

for abuse of discretion. See Garvin v. City of Philadelphia, 354 F.3d 215, 219 (3d Cir.

2003).

We agree with the District Court’s disposition of Flood’s two claims alleging that

Appellees tampered with audio tapes the Government submitted in his criminal trial. If a

judgment in favor of a plaintiff in a § 1983 civil suit would necessarily imply the

Case: 09-1390 Document: 003110044522 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/04/2010
 Issue preclusion applies to issues decided in criminal proceedings. See Allen v. 1

McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 104 (1980).

4

invalidity of the plaintiff’s prior criminal conviction, then the suit must be dismissed. 

Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Here, inasmuch as a finding that Appellees tampered with

evidence which was presented to Flood’s criminal jury would require an invalidation of

his criminal conviction, those claims are barred by Heck. Therefore, the District Court

did not abuse its discretion in denying Flood’s motion to amend his complaint to add

claims challenging the validity of the audio tapes. 

Flood’s remaining claims are partially barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel,

or issue preclusion. Issue preclusion prevents a party who litigated an issue previously

from rearguing that particular issue in a subsequent proceeding. See Szehinskyj v. Att’y

Gen., 432 F.3d 253, 255 (3d Cir. 2005). “The prerequisites for the application of issue

preclusion are satisfied when: 1) the issue sought to be precluded [is] the same as that

involved in the prior action; 2) that issue [was] actually litigated; 3) it [was] determined

by a final and valid judgment; and 4) the determination [was] essential to the prior

judgment.” Peloro v. United States, 488 F.3d 163, 174-75 (3d Cir. 2007). A finding in a

prior criminal proceeding may prevent an individual from litigating the same issue in a

subsequent civil proceeding. See Emich Motors Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 340 U.S.

558, 568 (1951).1

Case: 09-1390 Document: 003110044522 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/04/2010
5

In his criminal trial, Flood’s attorney challenged the voluntariness of the

statements Flood made to the police. The District Court, in ruling on the motion, made

several factual findings regarding Flood’s interrogation–including that police gave Flood

two opportunities to use the restroom and offered him food and drink during questioning. 

These findings now preclude Flood’s civil claims alleging that he was denied food and

access to a bathroom during questioning. See Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443

(1970) (when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final

judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future

lawsuit). Even if we did not find the claims precluded, we would agree with the District

Court that the food and drink, as well as the two bathroom trips police provided Flood,

complied with constitutional requirements.

Flood’s claim that the police used excessive force during his questioning is a

different matter, however. Flood argues that his ten-hour detention, when he was

handcuffed to a metal folding chair in an unheated room without a blanket, was

unreasonable in light of his known “serious back injury.” In the criminal trial, the District

Court did not address the temperature of the room or the tightness of the handcuffs in its

order resolving Flood’s suppression motion. Appellees argue that the District Court, in

ruling on Flood’s suppression motion, was required to consider the totality of

circumstances and would, therefore, have noted if the cold weather or the handcuffing

influenced the voluntariness of his statement. (Appelles’ Br. at 11, citing Schenckloth v.

Case: 09-1390 Document: 003110044522 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/04/2010
 Under the Eighth Amendment, the relevant question is “whether prison officials, 2

acting with deliberate indifference, exposed a prisoner to a sufficiently substantial risk of

serious damage to his future health.” Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 330 (3d Cir. 2009)

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). We analyze Flood’s claims under the

Fourth Amendment because the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and

6

Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973)). During the suppression hearing, however, Flood

litigated only whether police administered proper Miranda warnings as required by the

Fifth Amendment. In his suppression motion, Flood did not raise any excessive force

claims arising under the Fourth Amendment, and, as a result, the District Court did not

perform a totality of circumstances analysis. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment claims

related to Flood’s ten-hour pre-trial detention were never litigated and are not barred by

issue preclusion in his current civil case.

Our conclusion is not at odds with the Heck rule because it is analytically possible

for Flood to claim that Appellees subjected him to unconstitutional conditions even if a

statement he made during the same time period was voluntary. See, e.g., Gonzalez v.

Entress, 133 F.3d 551, 553-54 (7th Cir. 1998) (some Fourth Amendment violations are

unrelated to a criminal conviction). Indeed, Flood argues that his excessive force claim is

unrelated to the voluntariness of his confession. (Appellant’s Br. at 8-9.) While Flood

asserts in the “factual allegations” section of his pleadings that police used improper

methods to obtain his statement, (Amended Pleadings at 18-19.), he bases his claims in

the “causes of action” section of his complaint on the Appellees’ deliberate indifference

to his pain and suffering in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id. at 2

Case: 09-1390 Document: 003110044522 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/04/2010
unusual punishment does not apply until the State has complied with constitutional

guarantees traditionally associated with criminal convictions. See Graham v. Connor,

490 U.S. 386, 398-99 (1989).

 We agree with the District Court, however, that Flood’s chipped teeth, which he 3

attributes to his teeth chattering due to the temperature of the interrogation room, cannot

be attributed to excessive police force. Further, Flood’s allegation, that he was held in an

unheated room with an outside mean temperature of 38 degrees for ten hours while

7

25-26.) Moreover, Flood’s claims are not barred by preclusion principles since, as

indicated above, Flood could not be expected to raise excessive force claims in his

suppression hearing which were unrelated to the voluntariness of his confession.

Appellees also argue that Flood’s claims do not meet the pleading requirements

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In order to plead a Fourth Amendment civil rights

violation, Flood must show that a “‘seizure’ occurred and that it was unreasonable.”

Curley v. Klem, 499 F.3d 199, 203 (3d Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). It is unquestionable that Appellees seized Flood when they arrested him; thus,

the only issue is whether officers acted unreasonably during his arrest. Id. (quoting

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 7 (1985)). While handcuffing an arrestee to a chair is

not, by itself, unreasonable, we have held that an excessive force claim may arise from

improper handcuffing during arrest. See Kopec v. Tate, 361 F.3d 772, 778 (3d Cir.

2004). Arguably, if, as Flood alleges, police were aware that he had a severe back injury

and handcuffed him in a manner that caused excessive pain and suffering, he could

succeed in proving that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment. We conclude that

Flood’s Fourth Amendment claim was sufficiently pleaded.3

Case: 09-1390 Document: 003110044522 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/04/2010
normally clothed, is not a sufficient deprivation of “the minimal civilized measure of

life’s necessities” to constitute a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process

rights. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 188 (3d Cir. 1993). 

8

We are not suggesting that Flood will ultimately be successful in this action, only

that he has pleaded sufficient facts to allow the District Court “to draw the reasonable

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Capogrosso v. The

Sup. Ct. of N.J., 588 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Therefore, because the

District Court erred in dismissing Flood’s claim arising from his handcuffing during

questioning, we will remand for further proceedings on that claim only. The District

Court’s order is affirmed in all other respects. Appellant’s motion for sanctions and

requesting appointment of a special master is denied.

Case: 09-1390 Document: 003110044522 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/04/2010