T he H onor abl e J ohn E
. J ones , I I I , U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ct * of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT 

### N o . 09- 2194 

### KA REN R OM AN O, IN H ER IND I VI DUALCA PA CI TYAN D AS PARENT AND LEGAL GUARDIAN OF MINOR CHI LD, S. C.
v. CH RI ST OP HE R S
. YO UN G, IND I VI DUAL LYAN D IN H I S O FF I CI ALCA PA CI TY AS A M EM BE R O F T HE PL AINF I EL D T OW NS HI P P OL I CE DE PA RT MENT ; DE ANCE RAUL , IND I VI DUAL LYAN D IN H I S O FF I CI ALCA PA CI TYAS CH I EF OF PO LI CE OF TH E P LA INF I EL D T OW NS HI P P OL I CE DE PA RT MENT ; PL AINF IELD TO WNSH IP

Kar e n Rom ano, Appe l l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C
. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 2- 07- cv- 01708) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Thom as M . G ol den
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 20, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge, and J O N E S , D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 30, 201009)R o m a n o b ro u g h t su it ag a in st Y o u n g ; D e a n C e ra u l, C h ief o f th e P lain f

ield T o w n sh ip 1 P o lic e D e p a rt m e n t; a n d P la in f ie ld T o w n s h ip
. T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n o v e r th is c a se p u rsu a n t to 2 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 3 1 a n d 1 3 4 3 . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is a p p e a l u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C § 1 2 9 1
. 2 OP I NI ON
A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge C hr i s t opherY oung, w hi l e empl oy ed as a Pl ai nfi el d T ow ns hi p pol i ce of fi cer , had a
sex u al relat ion sh ip lasti n g sev era l m o n ths w ith S
. C
. , a 1 4 -y ea r-old m ino r. S
. C
. ’s m o ther, K a re n R o m a n o , ap p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f a ll defe ndant s on herci vi l r i ght s cl ai m s under42 U
. S. C
. § 1983. Speci fi cal l y , s he cha l l enges 1 the C our t ’ s concl us i on thatther e w as no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas t o w hether Yo u n g ’ s a c t i o n s we r e c o mm i t t e d u n d e rc o l o ro f s t a t e l a w. F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we
rever se and rem and for further proceedings. 2 I. T he Y oung and R om ano fa m i l i es w er e nei ghbor s and cl os e fa m i l yfr i ends
. T he f ir s t in a p p ro p ri a te e n c o u n te r b e tw e e n Y o u n g a n d S .C . o c c u rr e d o n N e w Y e a r’ s E v e , 2 0 0 4
. AtRo ma n o ’ s r e q u e s t , Yo u n g s t o p p e d b yh e rh o me t o c h e c k o n S
. C. a n d h e rf r i e n d s . He
m a d e s e x u a l r e m a rk s to th e m in o rs a n d g ra b b e d S .C .’s b u tto c k s a n d b re a s ts . I n M ay2005, Y oung ( age 27) and S. C
. ( age 14) began a s exual r el at i ons hi p thatT o es t abl i s h a § 1983 cl ai m , the pl ai nt i ff musts how : 1) a vi ol at i on of a r i ghts ecur ed 3 b y th e C o n s t i tu t i o n o rf e d e r a l l a w ; a n d 2 ) th a tth e a l l e g e d d e p r i v a t i o n w a s c o m m i t t e d b y a p e rs o n a c tin g u n d e r t h e c o lo r o f s ta te la w . M

ark v. B orou gh of H

atboro , 51 F. 3d 1137, 1 1 4 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). 3 l as t ed unt i l l at e J ul y . T he tw o had s exual r el at i ons appr oxi m at el yfi ve t i m es , ei therat
s oci al event s oratpr i vat e meet i ngs arr anged byphone. R o m an o learn ed o f h er d au g h ter’s r elati o n sh ip w ith Y o u n g w h en sh e f o u n d S
. C
. ’s di ary . A ft eran i nves t i gat i on, Y oung pl ed gui l tyt o s t atut oryr ape a nd w as s ent ence d t o 10 to 2 6 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. R o m a n o th e n f ile d th is s u it. II. W e e x e rc ise p len a ryre v iew o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t. A brah am v. R aso , 183 F. 3d 279, 287 ( 3d C i r . 1999)
. W e mustdet erm i ne w hetherthe
e v id e n c e sh o w s th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t an d th a t th e m o v in g p a rtyis
e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . See F e d . R .C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). “[ A ]ll inf e re n c e s in i nt erpr et i ng the evi dence pr es ent ed bythe part i es s houl d be dr aw n i n favorof the
n o n m o v in g p a rty . C a se s th a t tu rn c ru c iallyo n th e c re d ib ili tyo f w itn e ss e s’ te stim o n yin part i cul ars houl d notbe r es ol ved on s um m aryj udgm ent . ” A br aham , 183 F. 3d at287 (cit ati o n o m itted). T h e D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted s u m m aryjud g m en t bas ed o n it s co n clus ion that there
w a s n o e v id e n c e f

ro m w h ich a ju ryc o u ld c o n c lu d e Y o u n g w a s a c tin g u n d e r c o lo r o f sta te l aw . T he C our tr eas oned thatY oung’ s cl os e per s onal r el at i ons hi p w i th S. C
. ’ s fami l y , not 3W e gr antthe A ppel l ee’ s J oi ntM ot i on t o Suppl ementthe A ppendi x, es peci al l yas 4 m anypages of the appe ndi x pr ovi ded bythe A ppel l antar e i l l egi bl e. 4 hi s s t atus as a pol i ce of fi cer , enabl ed the r el at i ons hi p, and thatther e w as no evi dence Y o u n g f u rt h e re d h is “ p u re ly p ri v a te a c ts ” u s in g h is a u th o ri ty as a p o lic e o f f ic e r. See B ar na v. C i t

y of P er th A m boy , 4 2 F . 3 d 8 0 9 , 8 1 6 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ). H ow ever , r eac hi ng thi s concl us i on atthe s um m aryj udgm ents t age i s i m pr oper g iv e n S .C .’s d e p o sitio n tes tim o n yth a t Y o u n g th re a ten e d to p u t h e r b ro th e r in jail if sh e d id
n o t h a v e se x u a l re latio n s w ith h im , an d th a t sh e w a s a f ra id Y o u n g w o u ld g e t h e r in to tro u b le b e c a u se h e w a s a p o lice o f f ice r. (A p p e llee s’ J o in t S u p p ’l A p p . 1 7 0 , 1 7 7 . ) T h is 4 t est i m on ycreat ed a d i sputed m at eri al factas t o w hetherY ou ng “pu rport [ed] t o ex erci se offi ci al author i ty . ” B ar na , 42 F. 3d at816. I ns t ead of w ei ghi ng S. C
. ’ s depos i t i on t es t i m onyi n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pl ai nt i ff, the C our ti t s el f w ei ghed the evi dence and found he ri ncr edi bl e, s t at i ng: A l though [S. C
. ] t es t i fi ed at her depos i t i on[] that s he fel t thr eat ened byY oung i nt o havi ng s ex[] (
. . . [i ncl udi ng] thatY o ung thr eat ened t o puthery ounger b roth er in j ai l i f s he di d notcompl y ) [, ] and thats he w as s car ed thatY oung w oul d getheri n t r oubl e becaus e he i s a cop, the r ecor d i s compl et el ydevoi d of anys uppor tforthi s as s ert i o n . A ccor di ng t o the [Penns y l vani a St at e Pol i ce Inc iden t R e p o rt ], [ S .C .] s p e c if ic a lly sta te d th a t Y o u n g h a d n e v e r t h re a te n e d h e r. [ S
. C
. ] nev er w rot e i n her diary that Y ou ng threat ened her or coerce d h e r in to havi ng s ex. R ohn and C om pano bot h t es t i fi ed t hat [S. C
. ] never t ol d herthats he w a s f o rc e d b yY o u n g to h a v e s e x u a l r e la tio n s . D e L o re n z o te s tif ie d th a t [ S .C .] nevert ol d herthats he fe l tthr eat ened byorw as afr ai d of Y oung. W hen as ked atherdepos i t i on w hypr i ort o her depos i t i on s he had neve rt ol d the pol i ce orthe di s tr i ctatt orneythatY oung had thr eat ened he ri n anym anner , [S. C
. ] w as not f o rt h c o m in g a n d re p e a te d ly an s w e re d , “ I d o n ’t k n o w ” o r “ I d o n ’t re m e m b e r.”5

R om ano v. Y

oung , N o. 07- cv- 1708, 2009 W L 839017, at*4 ( E . D . Pa. M ar . 30, 2009) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. T hi s w as a cl as s i c w ei ghi ng of the evi dence thati s r es erved f o r t h e s o le p ro v in c e o f

th e ju ry, n o t th e C o u rt a t th e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t s ta g e . See A nders on v. Li ber t

y Lobby, I

nc. , 47 7 U . S
. 24 2, 25 5 (198 6) ( “C redi bil i tydeterm i nati on s, the w eigh ing o f th e e v iden ce , an d the d raw ing o f leg it im ate inf ere n ce s fro m the f

ac ts are ju ry f u n c tio n s , n o t th o s e o f

a ju d g e . . . ru lin g o n a m o tio n f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t . . . . T he evi dence of the non- m ovanti s t o be bel i eved, and al l j us t i fi abl e i nfer ence s ar e t o be draw n in hi s favo r. ”). L oo king atthe v i ct i m ’s dep osi t i on t est i m on yi n the l i gh tm ost f a v o ra b le to th e p la in tif

f , w e c a n n o t a g re e th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te ri a l f

a c t. B e c a u se th e C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f C e ra u l an d P lain f

ield T o wn s h i p wa s b a s e d s o l e l yo n i t s c o l o r - o f
- s t a t e - l a w d e t e r mi n a t i o n a s t o Yo u n g , we
re v e rs e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a s to th o s e d e f e n d a n ts a s w e ll. T herefore, w e revers e and rem and for further proceedings.