2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-21-2009 

# S t anford L arge v

. C ounty of M ontgome ry P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3167

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S t anfor d L arg e v

. C ounty of M ont g ome ry " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2007. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/2007D L D - 64 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. 08- 3167

___________ STAN FORD LERO Y LA RG E, A ppel l ant

v. CO UNT Y OF M ONT GOMER Y; DETECTI VE C HR I STOPHER K UK LENTZ; DETECTI VE O ' DO NN ELL

____________________________________ O n 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 07- cv- 03329 D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A ni t a B . B r ody

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary21, 2009 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM O n A ugus t13, 2007, St andfor d L er oyL ar ge, a pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, fi l ed a2

law su it p u rsu a n t to 4 2 U .S .C .S . § 1 9 8 3 a g a in st a v a rie tyo f d e f e n d a n ts a lleg in g th a t h is ci vi l r i ght s had bee n vi ol at ed dur i ng hi s arr es ton A pr i l 19, 2002, w hen the arr es t i ng offi cer s beathi m and ques t i oned hi m w i thoutr eadi ng hi m hi s M i r anda r i ght s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed Lar ge’ s compl ai nt , r eas oni ng thathi s cl ai m of exc es s i ve for ce w as t i m e- barr ed and hi s M i r anda c l ai m fai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed, pur s uantt o H eck v. H um phr ey , 512 U . S. 477 ( 1994) . L ar ge fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appe al and l at erfi l ed a mot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s ( “I FP”) , w hi ch w as su b se q u e n tlyg ra n ted b yth is C o u rt. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . S. § 1291. W e mays um m ar i l yaff i r m the D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t if th e a p p e a l p re s e n ts n o s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n , 3 d C ir . L A R 2 7 .4 and I . O . P. 10. 6, and mayaff i r m on di ffe r entgr ounds , pr ovi ded the bas i s foran af fi r m ance w as befor e the D i s tr i ctC our t. See M or s e v. L ow erM er i on School D i s t . , 132 F. 3d 902, 9 0 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d L a rg e ’s e x c e ss iv e f o rc e c laim p u rsu a n t to th e sta tu te o f li m it ati o n s. A s the co u rtex p lai n ed , b ec au se th e a cti o n s fo rm ing the b asis o f L arg e’s compl ai ntoccurr ed i n the C om m onw eal th of Penns y l vani a, Penns y l vani a’ s tw o y ear s t atut oryper i od appl i es t o hi s cl ai m s . See D i s abl ed I n A ct i on of Penns y l vani a v. S o u th e a s te rn P e n n s y lv a n ia T ra n s p o rt a tio n A u th o ri ty, 5 3 9 F .3 d 1 9 9 , 2 0 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). T he l i m i t at i ons per i od begi ns w hen the pl ai nt i ff know s orhad r eas on t o know of the inj uryform i ng the b asi s for the fe deral ci vil ri gh t s act i on . G entyv. R esol uti on T rust3

C orp. , 937 F. 2d 899, 919 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . A ppl y i ng G entyt o A ppel l ant ’ s exce s s i ve for ce cl ai m , i ti s appar entthatL ar ge w as aw ar e of hi s al l eged mi s tr eatm entas i toccurr ed on the dat e of hi s arr es t , A pr i l 19, 2002. A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed L ar ge’ s exce s s i ve for ce c l ai m as i tw as fi l ed i n 2007, s ever al y ear s bey ond the 2 y ear s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notappl ya s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons anal y s i s t o L ar ge’ s M i r anda claim , o p ti n g instead to d ism iss th e c lai m p u rsua n t t o H ec k . A s the D istri ct C o u rt expl ai ned, § 1983 i s notan ave nue forr el i ef f r om the mer e fa i l ur e t o pr ovi de a M i r anda w arni ng. C havez v. M art i nez, 538 U . S. 760, 772 ( 1994) and G i uffr e v. B i s s el l , 31 F. 3d 1241, 1256 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . R el i ef may , how ever , be ava i l abl e pur s uantt o § 1983 i f the s t at ementobt ai ned w i thouta M i r anda w arni ng i s us ed attr i al . R enda v. K i ng, 347 F. 3d 550, 557- 59 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . See al s o M cK i nl eyv. C i tyof M ans fi el d, 404 F. 3d 418, 436- 39 ( 6th C i r . 2005) and Sornber gerv. C i tyof K noxvi l l e, I l l i noi s , 434 F. 3d 1006, 1025- 27 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rtrejected the c lai m as b arred b yH ec k , w h ere the S u p rem e C o u rt hel d that“i n or dert o r ecove rdamages foral l egedl yuncons t i tut i onal convi ct i on or im p ri so n m en t, o r fo r oth er h arm ca u sed b yac ti o n s w h o se u n law fu lnes s w o u ld ren d er a convi ct i on ors ent ence i nval i d, a 42 U . S. C . S. § 1983 pl ai nt i ff mustpr ove thatthe co n v ict ion o r sen tenc e h as b ee n rev erse d o n d ir ec t app ea l, ex p u n g ed b yex ec u ti v e o rde r, d e c lar e d in v a lid b ya sta te trib u n a l au th o riz e d to m a k e su c h d e ter m in a tio n , o r c a lled in toT he Ei ghth C i r cui thas anal y zed thi s exac tques t i on and conc l uded thatM i r anda- 1 bas ed § 1983 cl ai m s do notrun afoul of H eck. Si m m ons v. O ’ B r i en, 77 F. 3d 1093, 1094- 95 ( 8th C i r . 1996) . Si m i l ar l y , s eeki ng damages forthe us e of e vi dence obt ai ned fr om an i l l egal w i r et ap atone’ s cr i m i nal tr i al i s notpr ohi bi t ed byH eck. A pampa v. L ayng, 157 F .3 d 1 1 0 3 , 1 1 0 5 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). 4 q u e s tio n b ya f

e d e ra l c o u rt ’s is s u a n c e o f a w ri t o f h a b e a s c o rp u s p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C .S . § 2 2 5 4 .” 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 a t 4 8 6 -8 7 . E x p lain in g f u rth e r th e C o u rt c o n tin u e d , “w h e n a sta te p ri so n er se ek s d am ag es in a § 1 9 8 3 su it , the d istri ct co u rtm u st co n side r w h ethe r a j udgm enti n favorof the pl ai nt i ff w oul d nece s s ar i l yi m pl ythe i nval i di tyof hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence . ” I d. at487. E m phas i zi ng the i m por t ance of the w or d “nec es s ar i l y , ” the C o u rt e x p lain e d , “if

th e d istric t co u rt d e ter m in e s th a t th e p lain tiff ’s a c tio n , ev e n if su c c e ss f u l w ill notdemonstr at e the i nval i di tyof anyout s t andi ng cr i m i nal j udgm ent agai ns tthe pl ai nt i ff, the ac t i ons s houl d be al l ow ed t o pr ocee d. ” I d. I n footnot e 7, the H e c k C o u rt p ro v id e d a n e x a m p le o f su c h a c a se : a su it fo r d a m a g e s a ttribu tab le to a n a lleg e d lyu n re a so n a b le s e a rc h m a ylie e v e n if the cha l l enged s ear ch pr oduced e vi dence thatw as i ntr oduced i n a s t at e cr i m i nal tr i al r es ul t i ng i n t he § 1983 pl ai nt i ff’ s s t i l l - out s t andi ng convi ct i on. B eca us e of d o c trin e s lik e in d e p e n d e n t so u rc e a n d in e v itab le d isc o v e ry , . . . a n d e sp e c ially h a rm les s e rro r, . . . su c h a § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n , ev e n if su c c e ss f u l w o u ld n o t n e c e ss a rily im p lyth a t th e p lain tiff ’s c o n v ictio n w a s u n law f u l. I d. ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . See al s o N el s on v. C ampbel l , 541 U . S. 637, 646- 47 (20 0 4 ). A p p ly ing H ec k an d N elso n h ere , w e a re u n co n v ince d that a f ind ing in L arg e’s favoron the M i r anda c l ai m w oul d n e c e ss a rily im p lyth a t h is c o n v ictio n w a s u n law f u l. 15

W e do nothave a nyr ecor d of w hetherthe evi dence al l egedl yobt ai ned i n vi ol at i on of M i r anda w as even us ed atthe cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs . W i thouta r evi ew of the s t at e tr i al c o u rt’s tra n sc rip t itis im p o ss ib le to d e ter m in e if L a rg e ’s c o n v ictio n re su lted e x c lu siv e ly f ro m h is o w n sta tem e n ts o r if o th e r in d e p e n d e n t ev id e n c e su f f icie n t to re su lt i n h is convi ct i on w as cons i der ed as w el l . A ccor di ng t o D efe ndantK ukl ent z’ aff i davi tof probab l e cause w hich w as at t ached as E xh i bitC t o D efen dan t ’s M oti on t o D i sm i ss P lai n ti ff ’s C o m p lai n t, “a stat em en t give n b yF ern b ac h ind icated that sh e a n d L arg e w ere i n the pr act i ce of

tr aff i cki ng coca i ne t ogether . ” Thi s s t at emental one s ugges t s thateven w i thoutL ar ge’ s i ncr i m i nat i ng s t at ement s , the tr i al courtm ayhave ha d s uffi ci entevi dence t o convi ctL ar ge. W e nee d notr es ol ve thi s i s s ue her e, how ever , beca us e i ti s cl earthat th e s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s h a s a ls o ru n o n A p p e lla n t’ s M ir a n d a c la im . A compl ai nti s s ubj ectt o di s m i s s al forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m on s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons gr ounds i f i ti s appar enton the fa ce of the C om pl ai ntthatthe ac t i on w as unt i m el yfi l ed and the af fi r m at i ve def

ens e w as al s o cl ear l ypl ead bydefe ndant s . See O s h iv e r v . L e v in , F is h b e in , S e d ra n & B e rm a n , 3 8 F .3 d 1 3 8 0 , 1 3 8 5 n .1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). I n the damages s ect i on of hi s compl ai nt , L ar ge s t at es thatthe al l eged i nj ury“has n o w c o s t th e p la in tif

f in e x c e s s o f

(3 ), T h re e -Y e a rs o f

h is lif e .” (C o m p la in t E x h ib it B ). A l tho ug h L arge di d n ot expl i ci t l yst at e w hich of the tw o all eged i njur i es he be l i eves co st h im th e th re e y e a rs o f

h is lif e , tak e n in p ro p e r c o n tex t itis c lea r th a t h e w a s re f e rrin g to the fr eedom he l os tas a r es ul tof hi s convi ct i on i n 2004 and s ubs equenti ncar cer at i on–notP inp o inti n g the b eg inn ing o f th e statute o f li m it ati o n s p eriod that ap p li es to L arg e’s 2 M ira n d a c laim re q u ire s d e ter m in in g w h e n th e v io latio n o c c u rre d . T h is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t “a c laim a c c ru e s in a f e d e ra l ca u se o f

a c tio n a s s o o n a s a p o ten tial c laim a n t eith e r is aw ar e, ors houl d be aw ar e, of the exi s t ence of a s our ce of i nj ury . ” O s hi verat1386. See al s o G i bs on v. Super i nt endantof N ew J er s eyD ept . O f Law and Publ i c Safe ty , 411 F. 3d 427, 436 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng fal s e arr es tand fa l s e i m pr i s onm entcl ai m s ar e not nece s s ar i l ybarr ed byH eck, butthe ca us es of ac t i on acc rue on the dat e of the arr es t . ) See S im m o n s a t 1 0 9 4 -9 5 (8 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (M ira n d a c laim n o t b a rre d b yH e c k , b u t th e c laim acc rued atthe t i m e of the M i r anda vi ol at i on) . L ar ge’ s M i r anda r i ght s w er e notvi ol at ed u n til th e ill e g a llyo b tain e d sta tem e n t w a s in tro d u c e d a t h is c rim in a l trial. S u p ra . O n c e th is occu rr ed at tri al i n h i s pres ence, Large k new or should hav e kn ow n o f t he inj ury . T hu s, appl y i ng O s hi ver , hi s caus e of a ct i on acc rued atthatt i m e. W hi l e the exa ctdat e the al l eged i l l egal l yobt ai ned s t at ementw as us ed i n tr i al c a n n o t b e d e ter m in e d f

ro m th e re c o rd , the c rim in a l d o c k e t sh e e t re v e a ls th a t th e g u ilty ver di ctw as r ender ed bythe M ont gom eryC ountytr i al J udge on M ar ch 26, 2004. T he a lleg e d M ira n d a v io latio n m u st h a v e o c c u rre d o n o r b e f o re th a t d a te. C re d iti n g L a rg e w ith the l at es tpos s i bl e dat e of the M i r anda vi ol at i on s t i l l r es ul t s i n the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons ru n n i n g o n M a r c h 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 , a f u l l 1 6 mo n th s b e f

o r e La r g e f

i l e d h i s c l a i m. 6 a l i t er al s hor t eni ng of hi s l i fe a s a r es ul tof the exc es s i ve for ce he al l eges occurr ed att he t i m e of hi s arr es t . W i th an i nj urythathe admi t s w as atl eas t3 y ear s ol d atthe t i m e he f iled h is c o m p lain t, as e v id e n c e d b yth e tex t o f th e C o m p lain t, L a rg e ’s M ira n d a c laim is out s i de the tw o y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . D efe ndant s ar gued thatthe C om pl ai ntw as 2 t i m e- barr ed i n thei rM ot i on t o D i s m i s s Pl ai nt i ff’ s C om pl ai nt , ther ebys at i s fy i ng the sec o n d p rereq u isi te fo r dism issal ou tl ined b yO sh iver. B e c a u se th is a p p e a l d o e s n o t p re se n t a s u b sta n tial q u e stio n , w e w ill su m m a rily a f f ir m th e J u d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .