2006 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 4-6-2006 

# Mi lle r v . H a s singe r 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 . 05-3283

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_2006

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 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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
" Mi lle r v . H as sin g e r " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1292. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1292NOT 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 . 05- 3283

________________ RODNEY M I LL ER, A ppel l ant
v. KENNET H HA S S I NGER, C orpor al , Penns y l vani a St at e Pol i ce; NI CH OL AS BL OS CH I CH AK; TRP . CURTI S W HI TM OYER; S GT. BARRY S TAUB; DI S T. J UST . THOM AS C ARR; P AUL DE AN; D. A. M I CH AE L GE OR GE

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 02- cv- 01520) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a lco lm M u ir

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 7, 2006 Be f o r e : M CK EE, FUEN TES AND NY GA AR D, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 6, 2006 )2 _______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM R odneyM i l l erappea l s t he J une 13, 2005 or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant i ng su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f d e f e n d a n t K e n n e th H a ss in g e r a n d d e n y in g h is m o tio n to am en d h is co m p lai n t t o ad d fo u r ne w d ef en d an ts. M il ler also a p p ea ls th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s
or ders tr i ki ng hi s m ot i on t o compel di s coveryfr om the def endant s . Forthe r eas ons s et forth b el ow , w e w i l l affirm i n p artand vacate i n p artand rem and for further proceedings. O n A ugus t28, 2002, M i l l erfi l ed a c om pl ai ntpur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 i n t he U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia. A s re lev a n t to th is appea l , M i l l eral l eged thathe ow ned pr oper t yl ocat ed at1030 G ol denvi l l e R oad i n B ut l er T o w n sh ip, A d am s C o u n ty , P en n sy lvan ia. M il ler fu rth er c lai m ed that o n o r ab o u t Jan u ary 9 , 2 0 0 1 , d e f

e n d a n t H a ss in g e r, a P e n n sy lv a n ia S tate P o lice c o rp o ra l, ap p lied f o r w a rra n ts to se arc h 1 0 2 4 & 1 0 3 0 B G o lden v il le R o ad . A cc o rdin g to M il ler, af ter th e p o li ce o ff

icers
se a rc h e d th e p ro p e rties n a m e d in th e w a rra n t an d q u e stio n e d th e tar g e ts o f th e ir i nves t i gat i on, t heyfor cef ul l yent er ed hi s pr oper tyat1030A G ol denvi l l e R oad, caus i ng d am ag e to a d o o r an d d o o r fram e in th e p roc ess. M il ler all eg ed that the w arran tl ess e n try vi ol at ed hi s ci vi l and cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , and r eques t ed r el i ef i n t he form of compensa t or yand puni t i ve damages , at t orney ’ s fee s , and cos t s . T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ua s pont e di s m i s s ed hi s compl ai ntpr i ort o s ervi ce, and on J ul y23, 2004, thi s C our tvaca t ed3

the di s m i s s al w i t h r es pectt o t he cl ai m s form i ng the bas i s of thi s appea l , and r emanded for f u rth e r f a c tu a l d e v e lo p m e n t. Fol l ow i ng r emand and s ervi ce of the compl ai nt , H as s i ngerfi l ed an a ns w eron N o v e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 4 , a n d th e n m o v e d f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n F e b ru a ry 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 . H assin g er a rgu ed that su m m aryjud g m en t w as p rop er b ec au se th e se arc h o f M il ler’s pr oper tyw as conduct ed pur s uantt o a pr oper l y - i s s ued and f ul l y - s uppor t ed w arr antand that , acc or di ngl y , t her e w as no Four t h A m endmentvi ol at i on. H as s i ngerfur t herar gued,
w i th r es pectt o M i l l er ’ s cl ai m of pr oper t ydamage, thatthe C our tof C om m on Pl eas of A d a m s C o u n tyh a d a lre a d ye n ter e d a n o rd e r d ire c tin g th e su b jec t o f th e se a rc h w a rra n t, Vi n c e n tNo wa k , t o p a yr e s t i tu t i o n t o M i l l e rf o rth e c o s to f

th e r e p a i r s . Ev e n i f

th e Ad a ms C ount yor derw er e notacc or ded ful l fai t h and cr edi t , H as s i ngerar gued, beca us e M i l l er d id n o t alle g e th a t H a ss in g e r p e rso n a llyb ro k e d o w n th e d o o r, an d b e c a u se , ac c o rd in g to H as s i nger ’ s s t at ementof m at er i al fac t s , he di d notent erthe hous e unt i l aft erthe w arr ant had bee n exec ut ed, he coul d notbe hel d per s onal l yl i abl e forthe damage. I n s uppor tof hi s m ot i on, H as s i ngers ubm i t t ed a de cl ar at i on and a s t at ementof
m at er i al fac t s . I n hi s decl ar at i on, H as s i ngers t at ed: “The se ar ch w arr ant s on t he pr emi s es at1024 and 1030 w er e exe cut ed on J anuary9, 2001. W hen I arr i ved atthe l ocat i on, other tr ooper s had al r eadym ade e nt r yi nt o the addr es s es . ” H as s i ngerm akes no m ent i on of the entryi nt o 1030A G ol denvi l l e R oad, w hi ch addr es s i tcannotbe di s put ed nei t herof the
w arr ant s r efe r r ed t o. T he s t at ementof m at er i al fac t s ci t es onl yt o t he compl ai nt , the4

ans w er , and H as s i nger ’ s decl ar at i on, and s i m i l ar l ydoes notaddr es s the ci r cumst ance s s u rr o u n d in g th e s e a rc h o f 1 0 3 0 A G o ld e n v ille R o a d . M i l l eroppos ed the entr yof s um m aryj udgm ent , ar gui ng thatthe s ear ch of 1030A G ol denvi l l e R oad w as cl ear l yuncons t i tut i onal , gi ven the expl i ci tl anguage of the w arr ant d e sc rib in g th e lo c a tio n to b e se a rc h e d a s f o llo w s: 10 30 B G oldenvil l e R oad , B utl er Tw p. , A dam s C ou nty , P A . R esi den ce i s a sing le st o ryw h it e ra n ch h o m e, bro w n sh ing led ro o f w ith d etac h ed o n e sto ry g re ym e tal o u tb u ild in g . T h is b u ild in g is a m u lti -f a m ilystru c tu re . 1 0 3 0 B is th e p o rt io n o f

th e h o m e o n th e ri g h t s id e w h e n f a c in g th e f

ro n t. A ccor di ng t o M i l l er , 1030A w as a s epar at e apa r t m entl ocat ed on the l efts i de of the
s tructur e, w hi ch had no c onnect i on t o t he s ubj ectof the w arr ant s i s s ued for1024 G o lden v il le R o ad , w h ere V ince n t N o w ak reside d , an d 1 0 3 0 B G o lden v il le R o ad , w h ere N ow ak’ s s t ep- daught erl i ved. Fur t herm or e, M i l l eral l eged thatthe pol i ce ha d al r eady g a in e d e n tr yto a n d s e a rc h e d 1 0 2 4 & 1 0 3 0 B G o ld e n v ille R o a d p ri o r t o e n te ri n g 1 0 3 0 A . M i l l erfur thers t at ed thatatthe t i m e of the entr y , 1030A w as ow ned byM i l l erand l eas ed to M ich a e l an d B o n n ie M a rtin e z , w h o w e re in n o w a yin v o lv e d in th e in c id e n ts under l y i ng t he w arr ant s . M i l l erar gued thathi s Four t h, Fi fth and Four t eenth A m endment
r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed bydefe ndant s ’ entr yi nt o 1030A , thatther e r emai ned genui ne d ispu tes o f m aterial fa ct as to w h o en tered the a p artm en t and w h en , an d that su m m ary j udgm entw as notappr opr i at e. R ather , he cont ended thatthe C our ts houl d or der d is c o v e ry re g a rd in g th e s e a rc h o f 1 0 3 0 A G o ld e n v ille R o a d . I n r epl y , H as s i ngerm ai nt ai ned that , beca us e M i l l erw as nei t hers ear ched nor5

p r o s e c u t e d f

o ra n yv i o l a t i o n o f

P e n n s y l v a n i a l a w, h e d i d n o th a v e s t a n d i n g t o c l a i m a cons t i tut i onal i nj ur yor“t o pur s ue a c l ai m r el at ed t o the l egal i t yof the exe cut i on of the
w arr ant . ” In its d e c isio n , the D istric t C o u rt f irst a d d re ss e d M ill e r’s sta n d in g to b rin g th is act i on. T he C our tr el i ed on H eck v. H um phr ey , 512 U . S. 477 ( 1994) , s t at i ng: A deci s i on i n t hi s cas e thatpl ai nt i ff i s ent i t l ed t o damages w oul d i m pl ythat V i ncentN ow ak’ s convi ct i on r es ul t ed part i al l yfr om evi dence obt ai ned dur i ng t he unl aw ful exec ut i on of the s ear ch w arr antat1030A and 1030B G ol denvi l l e R oad. B eca us e ther e has been no pr i oradj udi cat i on per t ai ni ng t o the val i di t yof the s ear ch w arr antand M r . N ow ak’ s convi ct i on has not been ove r tur ned, H eck ba r s an ac t i on fordamages s t emm i ng fr om pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m of “unl aw ful entr y ”. T he C our tw enton t o s ayt hat , even i f H eck w er e notappl i cabl e, M i l l erw as w i t hout sta n d in g to p u rsu e a F o u rth A m e n d m e n t cla im , as h e c o n c e d e d th a t th e a p a rtm e n t in ques t i on had bee n l eas ed t o M i chae l and B onni e M art i nez. W i t h r es pectt o H as s i nger , t he C our tconcl uded thati tw as “undi s put ed thatot herpol i ce of fi cer [s ] ent er ed the r es i dence pr i ort o H as s i ngerarr i vi ng, ” and ther efor e thatno j urycoul d r eas onabl yfi nd that H a ss in g e r e n ter e d th e re sid e n c e in v io latio n o f M ill e r’s F o u rth A m e n d m e n t rig h ts. W ith
re sp e c t to M ill e r’s d u e p ro c e ss c laim b a se d o n h is e f f o rts to re c o v e r f

o r d a m a g e d o n e to hi s pr oper tydur i ng t he s ear ch of a par t m ent1030A , the C our thel d t hatthe or derent er ed byt he C our tof C om m on Pl eas of A dams C ount ypr ecl uded M i l l erfr om r ecove r i ng damages fr om H as s i nger . T he C our tther efor e gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof H a s s in g e r.O n J ul y23, 2004, t hi s C our taff i r m ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of D i s t r i ct 1 J us t i ce Thom as C arrfr om t he ac t i on. O n J anuary18, 2005, the D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed d e f e n d a n ts P a u l D e a n a n d M ich a e l G e o rg e . M ill e r d o e s n o t re f e r to th e Ja n u a ry1 8 th o rde r i n h is no ti ce o f a p p ea l or h is i n fo rm al brief. O n Ju n e 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 , the D istri ct C o u rt d ism iss e d d e f

e n d a n t S tate T ro o p e rs N ich o las B lo sc h ich a k , B a rryS tau b a n d C u rtis W hitm oy er based on M i l l er’ s fai l ure t o all ege an ypersonal i nv olvem ent byanyof these defe ndant s i n connec t i on w i t h t he 2001 s ear ch. M i l l erdoes notr efe rt o t he di s m i s s al of th e s e d e f e n d a n t s i n h i s i n f

o r ma l b r i e f. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d o n o ta d d r e s s a n yo f h i s c l a i ms regar ding t hese de fend ants . 6 M il ler t im elyap p ea led f rom the C o u rt ’s Ju n e 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 o rde r gra n ti n g su m m ary j udgm enti n favorof H as s i ngerand deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o j oi n fournew defe ndant s t o t he
ac ti o n . M il ler also a p p ea ls th e C o u rt ’s ord er stri k ing h is m o ti o n to co m p el disco v ery

1 f ro m th e d e f

e n d a n ts . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . A . Sum m ar y Judgment W e fi r s taddr es s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof H as s i nger . W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, vi ew i ng t he under l y i ng fac t s and al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s ther efr om i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the p a rtyo p p o sin g th e m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. P e n n sy lv a n ia C o a l A ss ’n v . B a b b itt , 63 F. 3d 231, 235 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . A gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e “i f the p lea d in g s, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to in ter ro g a to rie s, a n d a d m iss io n s o n f ile, to g e th e r w ith the af fi davi t s , i f any , s how t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand that the movi ng part yi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . T he
non- m ovant ’ s al l egat i ons ar e t o be t aken a s true, and w hen theyconfl i ctw i t h t hos e of the
m ovant , t he form erm us tr ece i ve the bene fi tof the doubt . V al hal C orp. v. Sul l i vanT h e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t p ro v id e s: “ T h e rig h t o f th e p e o p le to b e se c u re in th e ir 2 per s ons , hous es , paper s , and ef fec t s , agai ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches and s ei zur es , s hal l not be vi ol at ed, and no W arr ant s s hal l i s s ue, butupon pr obabl e ca us e, s uppor t ed byO ath or aff i r m at i on, and part i cul ar l ydes cr i bi ng the pl ace t o be s ear ched, and the per s ons orthi ngs to b e s e iz e d .” 7 A sso cs., 4 4 F . 3 d 1 9 5 , 2 0 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). T he Four t h A m endmentguar ds agai ns tunl aw ful s ear ches and s ei zur es . W e agr ee 2
w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t M ill e r’s c laim o f a n u n c o n stitu tio n a l se a rc h is w ith o u t m e rit, gi ven hi s l ack of

a pr i vacyi nt er es ti n t he apa r t m ent . M i nnes ot a v. C art er , 525 U . S. 83, 88 ( 1998) ( i ndi vi dual m us tdemonstr at e a r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacyi n pl ace s e a r c h e d i n o r d e rt o s t a t e c l a i m f o rF o u r t h Am e n d me n tv i o l a t i o n ) . ByM i l l e r ’ s o wn admi s s i on, t he apa r t m enthad bee n l eas ed t o B onni e and M i chae l M art i nez. M i l l erdoes notal l ege thathe had a cce s s t o t he apa r t m ent , thathe s t ay ed i n i t , orthathe mai nt ai ned p e rso n a l it e m s th e re . T h u s, M ill e r h a s s e t f o rth n o b a sis f

ro m w h ich a re a so n a b le fac t fi ndercoul d concl ude thatM i l l erhad a pr i vacyi nt er es ti n t he apa r t m entthatw as vi ol at ed byt he s ear ch. H o w e v e r, o u r in q u iryd o e s n o t en d th e re , as M ill e r h a s a lleg e d f a c ts s u f f icie n t to st at e a cl ai m of an un l aw ful s ei zure. T he S up rem e C ou rthas def i ned a sei zure as a “‘m ea n ing fu l i n terfere n ce w ith an ind ividu al’s po sses so ryinterests w ith that p rop erty . ’” Sol dal v. C ook C ount y , I l l i noi s , 506 U . S. 56, 61 ( 1992) ( quot i ng U . S. v. J acobs en, 466 U . S. 109, 113 ( 1984) ) . T hus , i f M i l l ercan de m ons t r at e s uch an i nt er fer ence , he ca n p re v a il o n th is c laim d e sp ite th e a b se n c e o f a c laim th a t h is p riv a c yo r lib e rtyin ter e sts8

w er e al s o i nfr i nged byt hi s conduct . See i d. at62 ( “[O ] urcas es unm i s t akabl yhol d t hat th e A m e n d m e n t p ro tec ts p ro p e rtya s w e ll as p riv a c y .”). W h ile H a ss in g e r h a s a ttem p ted to sk irt this iss u e in h is b rie f b ya rg u in g th a t th e w a rra n t w a s s u p p o rte d b yp ro b a b le c a u se , it i s pl ai n fr om t he fa ce of t he w arr anti s s ued i n connec t i on w i t h t he 2001 s ear ch – the val i di tyof w hi ch M i l l erhas atno t i m e att empt ed t o di s put e – thati tperm i t t ed onl ythe
se a rc h o f 1 0 3 0 B G o ld e n v ill e R o a d . T h e w a rra n t sp e c if ica llyd e sc rib e d th e p re m ise s in ques t i on as : “a s i ngl e s t or yw hi t e r anch home, br ow n s hi ngl ed r oof w i t h det ache d one
s t orygr eym et al outbui l di ng. T hi s bui l di ng i s a mul t i
- fami l ys t ructur e. 1030B i s the p o rtio n o f

th e h o m e o n th e rig h t sid e w h e n f a c in g th e f

ro n t.” D e sp ite th is s p e c if ic des cr i pt i on of the l ocat i on t o be s ear ched, offi cer s nonethel es s for ci bl yent er ed 1030A G ol denvi l l e R oad, r es ul t i ng i n damage i n t he amountof $550. In B o n d s v . C o x , 2 0 F .3 d 6 9 7 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ), th e S ix th C irc u it co n sid e re d f a c ts s i m i l art o t he ca s e atbar . T he pl ai nt i ff, K athyB onds , ow ned a home i n w hi ch s he no l ongerr es i ded. Pur s uantt o a val i d s ear ch w arr ant , pol i ce of fi cer s ent er ed the r es i dence , conduct ed a s ear ch and di s cover ed a mar i j uana pi pe and otherdrug par aphernal i a. B onds
su e d th e o f

f ice rs f o r g ro ss n e g lig e n c e in e x e c u tin g th e w a rra n t, citin g o v e r $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 w o rth
o f d a m a g e to h e r h o u se re su lti n g f ro m th e se a rc h . T h e S ix th C irc u it h e ld th a t B o n d s d id
n o t h a v e sta n d in g to c o n tes t th e se a rc h d u e to h e r in a b ili tyto e sta b lish a re a so n a b le expec t at i on of pr i vacyi n t he r es i dence , butthats he coul d es t abl i s h t hatthe off i cer s had “s ei zed” herpr opert yw i t hi n t he meani ng of the Four t h A m endmentw hi l e conduc t i ng t he9

se a rc h . A p p ly in g th e sta n d a rd f o r a se izu re a rticu late d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt in S o ld a l, the C ou rtheld that “[t ]he dam age to B on ds’ house, w hich i ncluded broken do ors, m ut i l at ed vi ny l s i di ng, a cr acke d comm ode, hol es i n w al l s , br oken di s hes , and tr ampl ed per s onal bel ongi ngs , cl ear l yr i s es t o the l evel of a ‘ m eani ngful i nt er fer ence ’ w i t h her pos s es s oryi nt er es t s . ” I d. at702. T he Si xth C i r cui tw enton t o addr es s w hetherthe Four th A m endmentw as t he pr opervehi cl e underw hi ch t o addr es s B onds ’ cl ai m of pr oper tydamage, orw hethert he cl ai m w as m or e pr oper l ycogni zabl e underthe due pr oces s cl aus e. T he courtconcl uded that , underSol dal , s uch di s t i nct i ons w er e no l onger val i d and thatt he cl ai m coul d ar i s e underboth t he Four t h A m endmentand the due p roc ess c laus e. Id. at7 0 2 ; see a lso S o ldal, 5 0 6 U . S . at 70 (“C ertain w ron g s af fe ct m o re than a sin g le ri g h t and , ac co rdin g ly , ca n im p li ca te m o re tha n o n e o f th e C o n sti tuti o n ’s
comm ands . ”) ; B r ow n v. M uhl enber g T w p. , 269 F. 3d 205, 209, 213 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( anal y zi ng cl ai m forl os s of pr opert yas both Four t h A m endmentand pr ocedur al due p ro c e s s v io la tio n ). F o r th e re a so n s a rticu late d a b o v e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t M ill e r d o e s h a v e sta n d in g to
r ai s e a Four t h A m endmentcl ai m forthe uncons t i tut i onal s ei zur e of hi s pr oper t y . M i l l er a lleg e s th a t H a ss in g e r m a yb e h e ld liab le in h is s u p e rv iso ryc a p a c ityf o r d a m a g e to M i l l er ’ s dooreven i f he di d notper s onal l ycaus e the damage. W e di s agr ee. T o pr evai l on thi s cl ai m agai ns tH as s i nger , M i l l erm us tdemonstr at e per s onal i nvol vementbyH as s i nger i n damagi ng hi s pr opert y . See R ode v. D el l ar ci pr et e, 845 F. 2d 1195, 1207 ( 3d C i r . 1998)W e n o te th a t, w h ile H a ss in g e r h a s a rg u e d th a t itis u n d isp u ted th a t th e e n tryin to 3 a n d se a rc h o f

1 0 3 0 A G o ld e n v ill e R o a d to o k p lac e p rio r to h is a rriv a l o n th e sc e n e , h is ow n di s coveryr es pons e bel i es t hi s as s ert i on. O n M ar ch 7, 2005, i n r es pons e t o an interrog atoryp rop o u n d ed b yM il ler, H assin g er ind icated that h e w as o n e o f th e “ tr o o p ers i nvol ved i n t he entr yand s ear ch of the pr emi s es . ” W e trus tthat , on r emand, the D i s t r i ct C o u rt w ill c o n sid e r th is s tate m e n t, as w e ll as a n yo th e r re lev a n t as se rtio n s in th e re c o rd , in a ss e ss in g a n yre n e w e d m o tio n s f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t.

10 ( l i a b i l i tyu n d e rs e c t i o n 1 9 8 3 ma yn o tb e b a s e d o n a th e o r yo f r e s p o n d e a ts u p e r i o r ) . On
r emand, M i l l erw i l l have t o demonstr at e a mat er i al i s s ue of f actas t o w hetherH as s i nger ca u sed the d am ag e to M il ler’s do o r. B ec au se w e re m an d fo r co n side rati o n o f M il ler’s
mo t i o n t o c o mp e l , a s we l l a s f u r t h e rd e v e l o p me n to f

M i l l e r ’ s F o u r t h Ame n d me n tc l a i m, the part i es w i l l have a n oppor tuni t yt o devel op the r ecor d on thi s i s s ue. 3 M i l l erhas al s o advanc ed a due pr oces s cl ai m agai ns tH as s i ngerbas ed on the fo rcible e n tryinto 1 0 3 0 A G o lden v il le R o ad an d the re su lt ing d am ag e to h is pro p erty . In o u rAp r i l 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 o r d e r , we s p e c i f i c a l l yr e ma n d e d f

o rc o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

th i s i s s u e . As we e x p lain e d : “B e c a u se th e re c o rd is n o t y e t d e v e lo p e d , w e c a n n o t sa yth a t su c h a c laim
w o u ld f a il u n d e r th e P a rra tt/ H u d so n d o c trin e b e c a u se th e sta te h a s p ro v id e d a n a d e q u a te pos t - depr i vat i on r emedy . ” O n r emand, the D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatanyfur t herr el i ef
w ou l d b e barr ed b yt he A dam s C ou ntyorder. H ow ever, the C ou rtfai l ed to ass ess w h e th e r th e re stitu tio n o rd e r, w h ich w a s s e c u re d a g a in st a n in d iv id u a l w h o is n o t a p a rty to th is a c tio n , a n d w h ic h , a c c o rd in g to th e re c o rd , h a s n o t yet b e e n f u lly sa tis f

ie d , cons t i tut es an “a dequat e pos t - depr i vat i on r emedy ” as defi ned byParr attv. T ay l or , 451 U .S . 5 2 7 (1 9 8 1 ), an d H u d so n v . P a lm e r, 4 6 8 U .S . 5 1 7 (1 9 8 4 ). W e th e re f o re w ill v a c a te11

th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r to th e e x ten t itg ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t to H a ss in g e r o n th is cl ai m and r emand forfur t hercons i der at i on. B . M ot i on t o C om pel T he r ecor d pr ovi des us w i t h s om e i ndi cat i on of the di s coveryw hi ch has t aken p lac e in th is la w su it th u s f a r. U p o n re in sta tem e n t o f h is c o m p lain t, M ill e r im m e d iate ly
s oughtdi s coveryof “a nyand al l document s , aff i davi t s , s ear ch w arr ant s and s uch fi l ed,
u s e d t o s e a r c h t h e p r e mi s e s a t1 0 3 0 a n d 1 0 3 0 B Go l d e n v i l l e Rd . , Ge t t y s b u r g , P a . , Ad a ms C ount yon oraboutJ anuary9, 2001. ” The D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed thi s r eques tas pr ematur e and i ns t ruct ed M i l l ert o s erve al l futur e di s coveryr eques t s on couns el for defe nd ants . O n N ov em ber 15, 2004 , M i l l er s erved i nterrogat ori es on d efen dan t s, pr es um abl yr eques t i ng t he s ame i nform at i on as des cr i bed above . I n t he r ecor d i s a tw opage r es pons e dat ed N ovember29, 2004 i n w hi ch H as s i ngers t at ed thathe coul d not
r eca l l t he names of the off i cer s w ho ent er ed M i l l er ’ s pr oper t ybutthatthe names of the offi cer s i nvol ved s houl d be l i s t ed on the s ear ch w arr ant . I n fac t , the onl yname on t he
w arr anti s H as s i nger ’ s . I n addi t i on, M i l l err eques t ed thatH as s i ngerpr oduce pol i ce r epor t s r el at ed t o t he s ear ches i n ques t i on, w hi ch H as s i ngerobj ect ed t o on gr ounds of “r el evanc e, unl i kel i hood t o l ead t o t he pr oduct i on of admi s s i bl e evi dence , and pr i vi l ege a s es t abl i s hed byt he C r i m i nal H i s t or yR ecor ds I nform at i on A ct , Pa. C ons . St at . §§ 9101 et
s eq .” It d o e s n o t a p p e a r t h a t th e s e o b je c tio n s w e re e v e r r e s o lv e d . O n D e c e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 , ap p ro x im a telyf iv e m o n th s a f

ter re in sta tem e n t o f

h is12

c o m p lain t, M ill e r f

iled a m o tio n to c o m p e l, se e k in g “ a n ya n d a ll rele v a n t d o c u m e n ts in
r egar d t o entr yand s ear ch of 1030 or1030A G ol denvi l l e R oad, G et t y s bur g on orabout J anuary9, 2001. E vi dence t hatw oul d ci t e per s ons , t i m e and t ool s us ed t o gai n entr yas w ell as a n yo ther p erti n en t i n fo rm ati o n to this ca se.” T h e D istri ct C o u rtstru ck M il ler’s
m ot i on t o compel fr om t he r ecor d forfai l ur e t o s eek l eave of the C our tbefor e fi l i ng t he
m oti on , ci t i ng L ocal R ule 5. 4 in suppo rtof thi s ruli ng . L ocal C i vil R ule 5. 4(b) pr ov i des: “I nt err ogat or i es , r eques t s fordi s cl os ur es , r eques t s fordocument s , r eques t s for admi s s i ons , and ans w er s and r es pons es ther et o s hal l be s erved upon othercouns el and part i es buts hal l notbe fi l ed w i t h t he courtexce ptas author i zed bya pr ovi s i on of the F e d e ra l R u le s o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re o r u p o n a n o rd e r o f th e c o u rt .” T ypi cal l y , t he managementof di s coveryi s comm i t t ed t o t he s ound di s cr et i on of th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . W is n ie w s k i v . J o h n s -M a n v ille C o rp ., 8 1 2 F .2 d 8 1 , 9 0 (3 d C ir .1 9 8 7 ). W e ther efor e r evi ew t he or derof a di s t r i ctcour tr el at i ng t o di s coveryforabus e of d is c re tio n . G a lla s v . S u p re m e C o u rt o f P e n n s y lv a n ia , 2 1 1 F .3 d 7 6 0 , 7 7 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). H er e, the D i s t r i ctC our ts t ruck M i l l er ’ s m ot i on t o compel w i t houtact i ng on i t , ci t i ng L ocal R ul e 5. 4 as s uppor t . H ow ever , thi s rul e appl i es t o t he fi l i ng of r eques t s forand
r es pons es t o di s covery , notm ot i ons t o compel di s coveryas pr ovi ded forbyR ul e 37( a) of th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re . T h e D istric t C o u rt’s f a ilu re to a c t o n th is m o tio n in the fi r s ti ns t ance cons t i tut es an abus e of di s cr et i on. See R ayv. R obi ns on, 640 F. 2d 474, 4 7 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 1 ). W e the ref o re w il l vac ate the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er stri k ing M il ler’s13

m o tio n to c o m p e l. C . M ot i on f

or Joi nder O n M ar ch 14, 2005, M i l l erfi l ed w hathe t erm ed a mot i on forj oi nder , r eques t i ng perm i s s i on of the C our tt o add fouraddi t i onal s t at e tr ooper s as defe ndant s . I n t he br i ef fil ed in su p p o rto f h is m o ti o n , M il ler i n d icated that the n am es o f th ese fo u r st ate troo p ers w e re d isc lo se d to h im in a re c e n t re sp o n se to a d isc o v e ryre q u e st. P re su m a b ly , h e is ref erring to H assin g er’s M arc h 7 , 2 0 0 5 d isco v eryresp o n se in d icati n g that “the tr o o p ers i n v o l v e d i n t h e e n t r y a n d s e a r c h o f p r e m i s e s i n c l u d e d K e n n e t h H a s s i n g e r , T o d d R u d y, J ames Borz a, T . E . Pi nker t on, and J ohn B rum bagh. ” A s not ed bydefe ndant , w hi l e the
m o ti o n w as c ap ti o n ed u n d er R u le 19 o f th e F ed era l R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re, i t w as m o re pr oper l yanal y zed unde rR ul e 15, w hi ch governs the amendm entof pl eadi ngs . R el y i ng on R ul e 15( c) , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on i n i t s J une 13, 2005 or derbas ed on M ill e r’s in a b ili tyto “ m e e t th e n e c e ss a ryre q u ire m e n ts o f F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 5 (c )(3 ) to p e rm it a n a m e n d m e n t.” W e re v iew th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n d e n y in g M ill e r’s m o tio n to a m e n d h is compl ai ntforabus e of di s cr et i on. G arvi n v. C i t yof Phi l adel phi a, 354 F. 3d 215, 219 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). R u le 15 (c) g o v ern s the relati o n b ac k o f a co m p lai n t add ing n ew p arti es. In pert i nen tpart , i tprovides: (c) R el ati on B ack of A m en d m en ts . A n amendm entof a pl eadi ng r el at es b a c k to th e d a te o f

th e o ri g in a l p le a d in g w h e n . . .14

( 2) t he cl ai m ordefe ns e as s er t ed i n t he amended pl eadi ng ar os e outof the c o n d u c t, tra n sa c tio n , o r o c c u rre n c e se t f o rth o r a ttem p ted to b e se t f o rth in the or i gi nal pl eadi ng, or (3) t he am end m ent chang es the p artyor the n am i ng of the partyagainst w hom a cl ai m i s as s er t ed i f the for egoi ng pr ovi s i on ( 2) i s s at i s fi ed and, w i thi n t he per i od pr ovi ded byR ul e 4( m ) fors ervi ce of the s um m ons and compl ai nt , t he part yt o be br oughti n byamendm ent( A ) has r ece i ved s uch n o tice o f th e in stitu tio n o f

th e a c tio n th a t th e p a rtyw ill n o t b e p re ju d ice d in ma i n t a i n i n g a d e f

e n s e o n t h e me r i t s , a n d ( B) k n e w o rs h o u l d h a v e k n o wn that , butfora mi s t ake c oncerni ng the i dent i t yof the pr operpart y , the ac t i on w o u l d h a v e b e e n b r o u g h ta g a i n s tth e p a r t y. T hi s C our tcar eful l yexami ned the r equi r ement s of R ul e 15( c) i n Si ngl et aryv. Penns y l vani a D ep’ tof C or r ect i ons , 266 F. 3d 186 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , and G arvi n v. C i t yof Phi l adel phi a, 354 F. 3d 215 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . A s w e have expl ai ned, the rul e r equi r es that th re e c o n d iti o n s b e m e t in o rd e r f o r a n a m e n d e d c o m p lain t se e k in g to su b stitu te n e w ly named defenda nt s t o r el at e bac k t o the or i gi nal compl ai ntfors t atut e of l i m i t at i ons pu rposes. S i ng l et ary , 26 6 F . 3d at19 4. T hese co nd i t i on s ar e: (1) that the clai m against the new l ynamed defenda nt s ar os e outof the s ame conduct , tr ans act i on, oroccurr ence s et for th i n the or i gi nal compl ai nt , ( 2) t hatw i t hi n t he 120- dayper i od fors ervi ce of the
s um m ons and compl ai nt , t he new l ynamed par t yhave r ece i ved not i ce of the i ns t i tut i on of the ac t i on s uch thati tw i l l notbe pr ej udi ced i n m ai nt ai ni ng a def ens e on the mer i t s , and ( 3) t hatw i t hi n t hats ame t i m e per i od of t i m e, the new l ynamed par t ym us thave know n, or shou l d h ave k no w n, t hat “butfor a m i st ake,” he or she w ou l d h ave b een n am ed as a d e f e n d a n t in th e f

ir s t p la c e . S e e id . W e have fur t herhel d t hatt he not i ce r equi r ed byR ul e 15( c) can be actual orW h ile w e h e ld in S in g le ta ry a n d G a rv in th a t “ a n o n -m a n a g e m e n t e m p lo y e e . . . 4 does nots har e a s uffi ci entnexus of i nt er es t s w i t h hi s orherempl oy ers o t hatnot i ce gi ven to the em p loy er c an b e im p u ted to the e m p loy ee fo r R u le 15 (c)(3) p u rpo ses,” the inq u iry i n thos e ca s es di ffe r ed fr om t he i nqui r yi n t he i ns t antcas e. I n Si ngl et aryand G arvi n, t he ques t i on w as w hethernon- m anage m entempl oy ees coul d be i m put ed t o have r ece i ved not i ce f r om t hei rempl oy er s , w hi ch had be en named as defe ndant s ( i n Si ngl et ary , the Penns y l vani a D epart m entof C or r ect i ons , and i n G arvi n, the C i t yof Phi l adel phi a) . I n t he i ns t antcas e, t he i nqui r yi s w hethert he ci r cumst ance s perm i tthe i nfer ence thatthe tro o p e rs r e c e iv e d n o tice o f th e p e n d e n c yo f

th e law su it fro m T ro o p e r H a ss in g e r, a U n it Super vi s orforT r oop H T act i cal N ar cot i c Team . T he r el at i ons hi p betw een H as s i ngerand th e t r o o p e r s s o u g h tt o b e a d d e d i s n o tc l e a ra tth e p r e s e n tt i m e , a n d th u s w e c a n n o ts a y, based o n the r ecord b efore us, w hethersuch an i nference w ou l d b e reas on able. W e t rust that, on rem and , t he D i stri ctC ou rtw i l l tho rough l yexp l ore these an d o t her r el evan ti ssues. 15 cons truct i ve. W her e a pl ai nt i ff c hoos es t o r el yon cons t ruct i ve not i ce t o s at i s fythe
r equi r ement s of R ul e 15( c) ( 3) , he ors he ca n demonstr at e s uch not i ce e i t herthr ough the
s har ed att or neym ethod ort he i dent i t yof i nt er es tm ethod. See i d. at196- 200; G arvi n, 354 F. 3d at223- 227. T he s har ed att or neym ethod r equi r es thata pl ai nt i ff de m ons t r at e that ther e w as “s om e comm uni cat i on orr el at i ons hi p” betw een the att orneyforthe named defe ndant s and the part i es s oughtt o be adde d as defe ndant s pr i ort o t he expi r at i on of the 120- dayper i od fors ervi ce of t he s um m ons and compl ai nt . See i d. at196- 97; G arvi n, 354 F. 3d at225. T he i dent i t yof i nt er es tm ethod r equi r es the pl ai nt i ff t o demonstr at e that the ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng t he fi l i ng of the l aw s ui tperm i tthe i nfer ence the not i ce w as a c tu a l l yr e c e i v e d b yt h e p a r t i e s s o u g h tt o b e a d d e d a s d e f e n d a n t s d u r i n g th e r e l e v a n tt i me p e rio d . S e e id . at 1 9 7 -2 0 0 ; G a rv in , 3 5 4 F .3 d a t 2 2 7 . B a se d o n th e re c o rd p re se n tly

4 befor e us , i tdoes notappea rt hatA ppel l anthad a s uffi ci entoppor tuni t yt o conduct di s coveryon t he i s s ue of not i ce. W e ther efor e conc l ude thati tw as an abus e of di s cr et i onW e thi nk i tr el evantt o not e her e that , i n contr as tt o t he appe l l anti n G arvi n, w ho 5 d e layed in f

ili n g h e r la w su it, in se e k in g d isc o v e ryre g a rd in g th e p ro p e r d e f e n d a n ts, a n d in at t empt i ng t o amend hercompl ai nt , A ppel l anthas act ed as di l i gent l yas coul d be expe ct ed underthe ci r cumst ance s . A ppel l antfi l ed hi s or i gi nal compl ai ntonl yfi ve mont hs aft ert he i nci denti n ques t i ons occurr ed, w el l w i t hi n t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . A s al r eady di s cus s ed, on D ece m ber17, 2004, M i l l erfi l ed a mot i on t o compel di s coveryfr om H as s i nger . N ot abl y , t hi s m ot i on w as fi l ed w i t hi n t he 120- dayper i od fors ervi ce of the s um m ons and compl ai nt , and had i tbeen pr om pt l yact ed upon, m i ghthave a l l ow ed A p p e llan t su f

f icie n t ti m e to p ro v id e th e n e w ly -d isc o v e re d sta te tro o p e rs w ith n o tice o f h is in ten t to n a m e th e m a s d e f e n d a n ts in th is a c tio n . In a d d iti o n , in h is o p p o sitio n to d e f e n d a n t ’ s mo t i o n f

o rs u mma r yj u d g me n t , Ap p e l l a n tn o t i f i e d th e Co u r to f

h i s p r o b l e ms i n obt ai ni ng di s coveryfr om defe ndanton t hi s s ubj ect , expl ai ni ng: “D efe ndantH as s i nger an d h is at torn eyh av e w ith h eld re q u ested d isco v eryinf o rm ati o n in reg ard to p ap erw o rk h e ld b yth e d e f

e n d a n t th a t w o u ld n a m e th e p a rt ic ip a n ts o f th e ille g a l s e a rc h .” O n O ct ober7, 2005, M i l l erfi l ed an i nform al br i ef w i t h t hi s C our tw hi ch purpor t ed 6 t o be s i gned byan “a ut hor i zed Repr es ent at i ve on beha l f of RodneyM i l l er , © E ns l egi s . ” A ppel l ee moved t o s t r i ke A ppel l ant ’ s br i ef f orfai l ur e t o compl yw i t h Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 32( d) , ar gui ng thati tw as uncl earw hetherA ppel l antcont i nued t o be a pr operl i t i gantbefor e thi s C our t . M i l l erfi l ed a r es pons e i ndi cat i ng thatthe s i gnatur e on hi s i nform al br i ef w as i n fac thi s . I n l i ghtof the for egoi ng, the mot i on t o s t r i ke i s deni ed. 16 t o denythe mot i on and, acc or di ngl y , w i l l vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng M ill e r’s m o tio n to a m e n d th e c o m p lain t. 5 B a se d o n th e f

o re g o in g , the D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t w ill b e a f f ir m e d w ith re s p e c t to th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t s e a rc h c la im b u t o th e rw is e v a c a te d . T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der s s t r i ki ng A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o compel and mot i on t o amend h is c o m p lain t w ill b e v a c a ted . A p p e llee ’s m o tio n to strik e A p p e llan t’s in f o rm a l b rie f

is deni ed. 6