2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-8-2011

William Walker Jr. v. City of Philadelphia

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-4136

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"William Walker Jr. v. City of Philadelphia" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 909.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/909
ALD-219 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-4136

___________

WILLIAM JAMES WALKER, JR., 

 Appellant

v.

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE;

DEFENDER ASSOCIATION OF PHILADELPHIA; 

*R. SETH WILLIAMS, ESQ.; ELLEN GREENLEE; 

DENNIS KELLY; JOHN MADDEN, ESQ.

NICOLE TAYLOR, ESQ.

*Amended pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2)

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-02071)

District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

June 23, 2011

Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN AND VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed July 8, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________
2

PER CURIAM

Walker, a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s dismissal 

of his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). For the reasons stated below, we will 

summarily affirm. 

I.

Walker filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985

against the City of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia County District Attorney’s Office, the 

District Attorney, the Defender Association of Philadelphia, and several individual public 

defenders. He alleged that these defendants conspired to have him plead guilty to 

criminal charges despite being aware of evidence he claims would prove his innocence. 

He sought both monetary relief and the release of all exculpatory evidence.

The District Court granted Walker’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and later 

dismissed his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 

II.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may 

summarily affirm if the appeal presents no substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 

I.O.P. 10.6.

III.

We agree with the District Court’s determination that Walker’s civil rights claim is

without merit. To the extent Walker brought his claim pursuant to § 1985(3), the District 
3

Court correctly dismissed. Walker did not allege that any of the defendants’ actions were 

motivated by invidious class-based discriminatory animus, Farber v. City of Paterson, 

440 F.3d 131, 134-43 (3d Cir. 2006), and he failed to state a cognizable claim under any 

other subsection of § 1985. 

To the extent Walker sought relief under § 1983, dismissal was likewise correct as 

none of the defendants is liable under that provision. The City of Philadelphia is not 

subject to liability in a civil rights action absent a showing that unlawful actions were 

taken as a result of an approved municipal or governmental custom. Monell v. New York 

Dep’t of Social Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). The District Attorney’s Office and 

the District Attorney himself have absolute immunity from liability for actions related to 

their official duties. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 410 (1976). The Defender 

Association of Philadelphia and the individual public defenders are not liable under §

1983. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981) (public defenders not liable 

because they were not acting under color of state law). 

We also agree with the District Court that Walker’s conspiracy claim does not 

appear to be based in fact, but merely upon his own suspicion and speculation. Young v. 

Kann, 926 F.2d 1396, 1405 n.16 (3d Cir. 1991). 

Accordingly, the District Court did not err in dismissing his complaint as legally 
4

frivolous.1 Id. We are satisfied that any amendment to Walker’s Complaint would have 

been futile, and thus the District Court properly dismissed without leave to amend. See

Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002). As the appeal 

presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the judgment below. See 3d 

Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 and 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.

 

1

To the extent Walker sought to invalidate his state convictions, the remedy was 

available only through habeas corpus proceedings. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 

486-87 (1994).