Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-01449/USCOURTS-ca3-14-01449-0/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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 14-1449

____________

DAVID CALHOUN,

 Appellant

v.

*SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE;

KENYA MANN; JOEL GOLDSTEIN, All In Their Individual Official 

Capacities and as Agents In Fact

*(Party Terminated Pursuant to Court Order dated 09/05/14)

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 2-08-cv-00458)

District Judge: Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter

____________

Argued November 18, 2015

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: December 3, 2015)

Richard J. Albanese (Argued)

Ari R. Karpf

Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti

3331 Street Road

Suite 128, Two Greenwood Square

Bensalem, PA 19020

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant

Case: 14-1449 Document: 003112145552 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2015
2

Elizabeth S. Mattioni (Argued)

Charlene K. Fullmer

Margaret L. Hutchinson

Office of United States Attorney

615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees

____________

OPINION*

____________

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

David Calhoun appeals two District Court orders: one dismissing his Bivens claims 

against Assistant United States Attorneys Kenya Mann and Joel Goldstein and the other 

denying his motion for reconsideration. Calhoun claims the facts he pleaded, viewed in 

the light most favorable to him, permit the inference that Mann and Goldstein violated his 

clearly established constitutional rights when they caused him to be unlawfully detained

from February 23, 2006, until April 17, 2006. 

As was made manifest at oral argument, Calhoun’s case is based on a faulty 

premise. The public record, which includes opinions of the Pennsylvania state courts, 

demonstrates that Calhoun was lawfully held on a state detainer until April 4, 2006. See

Calhoun v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 2007 WL 8058363, at *1 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Nov. 9, 

 

*This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does 

not constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-1449 Document: 003112145552 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2015
3

2007). Accordingly, Calhoun’s claim that Mann recklessly misled and obstructed prison 

staff in March 2006 by stating that Calhoun was lawfully detained is without foundation.

Because Calhoun was lawfully detained at the time of the alleged conversation, Mann

accurately reported his detention status.

Having determined that Mann’s statement is not actionable, Calhoun’s remaining 

allegations are bald assertions of wrongdoing that are not credited at the motion to 

dismiss stage. See Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 351 (3d Cir. 2005). And any attempt 

to amend the complaint to account for the fact that Calhoun was lawfully held at the time 

Mann made her statement would be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 

103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). 

For the reasons stated, we will affirm the District Court’s judgments.

Case: 14-1449 Document: 003112145552 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/03/2015