2007 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 Third C ircuit 7-20-2007 

# G i allorenzo v

. B e a ve r P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4893

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

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

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " G i allore nz o v

. Be a ve r " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 713. http://digit alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2007/713B L D - 286 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 . 06- 4893

________________ M AR CE L L O GI AL L OR E NZ O,

A p p e llan t, v. B E A V E R C O U N T Y ; JE F F R E Y P A L A D IN A , ind iv id u a lly ;

J. T . E N G E L , ind iv id u a lly

____________________________________ 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( W . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 06- cv- 0354) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le T erren ce F . M cV erry

___________________________________ S u b mi tt e d F o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) J une 28, 2007 Bef or e : M CK EE, FU EN TES A N D V A N A N TW ER PEN , CI RC U I T J U D G ES. ( Fi l ed J ul y20, 2007)

___________________ OP I NI ON

___________________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l ant , M ar cel l o G i al l or enzo, appea l s pr o s e fr om the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s or der g r a n t i n g th e d e f

e n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s h i s c o mp l a i n t . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o rth b e l o w,2

w e w ill s u m m a ri ly af

f irm th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r. S e e I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . O n February16, 2005, G i al l or enzo w as s ent ence d t o a 30- dayt erm of pr obat i on for assa u lt ing M ag g ie B ruc e, his g ir lfri en d an d the m o ther o f h is ch il d . S ev era l day s lat er, G i al l or enzo— w hi l e s t i l l on pr obat i on— w as agai n arr es t ed foras s aul t i ng M s . B ruce, and w a s s u b s e q u e n tly c h a rg e d w ith u n la w f u l r e s tr a in t, s im p le a s s a u lt, a n d h a ra s s m e n t. G i al l or enzo w as r el eas ed on bai l pendi ng a hea r i ng on the cr i m i nal char ges . M eanw hi l e, Pr obat i on O ffi cerJ . T . E ngel had the di s tr i ctatt orney ’ s offi ce f i l e a pe t i t i on forvi ol at i on of pr obat i on. O n M ar ch 18, 2005, G i al l or enzo a nd M s . B ruce appear ed fora pr el i m i naryhear i ng on G i al l or enzo’ s cr i m i nal char ges . Pr i ort o the hea r i ng, A s s i s t antD i s tr i ctA tt orney ( “A D A ”) Pal adi na off

er ed G i al l or enzo apl ea ba r gai n, buthe r efus ed on the gr ounds that h e h a d p ro o f

th a t M s. B ru c e w a s ly in g . A D A P a lad in a th e n a sk e d th e d istric t ju stic e to r evoke G i al l or enzo’ s bai l bond. A s a r es ul t , the di s tr i ctj us t i ce r evoked hi s bai l and p la c e d h im in a h o ld in g c e ll u n til h e c o u ld b e tr a n s p o rt e d to th e B e a v e r C o u n ty ja il. T hr ee da y s l at er , on M ar ch 21, 2005, G i al l or enzo’ s couns el att empt ed t o have the bond or derr ei ns t at ed, butG i al l or enzo w as notr el eas ed bec aus e Pr obat i on O ffi cerE ngel had p lace d a d etaine r on h im . O n M arc h 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 , fo ll o w ing a h ea ri n g o n G ial loren zo ’s m ot i on t o s etbai l and l i ftthe det ai ner , the bond or derw as r ei ns t at ed and G i al l or enzo w as re le a s e d . On M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 , Gi a l l o r e n z o c o mme n c e d a c i v i l r i g h t s a c t i o n u n d e r4 2 U. S . C.3

§ 1983 i n the U . S. D i s tr i ctC ourtforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a aga i ns tB eave r C o u n ty , A D A P a lad in a , an d P ro b a tio n O f f ice r E n g e l. In th e c o u n se led c o m p lain t, G iallo re n z o a lleg e d th a t h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts h a d b e e n v io late d w h e n d e f e n d a n ts re v o k e d th e b a il b o n d o n h is s e c o n d a s s a u lt c h a rg e a n d f ile d a d e ta in e r a g a in s t h im . Speci fi cal l y , G i al l or enzo a r gued thatthe def endant s had hi m “unl aw ful l ydet ai ned forthe d u b iou slystat ed rea so n that G ial loren zo d id n o t hav e c o u n sel p rese n t ath is preli m inary hear i ng, ” and “ w i thoutanyfac t s orci r cumst ance s t o r eas onabl yi ndi cat e thathe had vi ol at ed the t erm s of hi s pr obat i on. ” G i al l or enzo a l s o br oughtcl ai m s fordefa m at i on and ab u se o f p roc ess u n d er P en n sy lvan ia l aw . O n O ctob er 3 1 , 2 0 0 6 , the D istri ct C o u rt d ism iss e d w ith p re

ju d ice th e c laim s b ro u g h t u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , an d d e c lin e d to exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overthe s t at e l aw cl ai m s . T he pr es entappea l f o llo w e d . W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. See Tours cher v. M cC ul l ough, 184 F. 3d 236, 240 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . A ft era ca r eful r evi ew of the r ecor d, we c o n c l u d e th a tth e a p p e a l p r e s e n t s “ n o s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n ” u n d e rT h i r d Ci r c u i tL AR 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6. W e w i l l ther efor e s um m ar i l yaff i rm the D i s tr i ctC ourt ' s or deron the g ro u n d s th a t G ia llo re n z o ’s c la im s a re n o t c o g n iz a b le in a n a c tio n u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . It is w e ll-se ttl e d th a t w h e n a sta te p riso n e r is c h a llen g in g th e f a c t o r d u ra tio n o f

h is confi nement , hi s s ol e fe der al r emedyi s a w r i tof habe as corpus , nota § 1983 ac t i on. P r e i s e rv . Ro d r i g u e z , 4 1 1 U. S . 4 7 5 , 5 0 0 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . I n He c k v . Hu mp h r e y , th e S u p r e meG iven that G ial loren zo fa il ed to state a c o g n izab le fe d era l cl aim , the D istri ct C o u rt 1 pr oper l ydecl i ned t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overG i al l or enzo’ s s t at e l aw cl ai m s . See 28 U .S .C . § 1 3 6 7 (c )( 3 ). Al th o u g h Gi a l l o r e n z o wa s n o tg i v e n a n o p p o rtu n i tyt o a me n d th e c o mp l a i n t , we 2 concl ude thatanys uch amendm entw oul d have be en fut i l e. See G r ay s on v. M ayvi ew 4 C ourthel d that“harm caus ed byact i ons w hos e unl aw ful nes s w oul d r endera convi ct i on ors ent ence i nval i d” i s notcogni zabl e under42 U . S. C . § 1983, unl es s the convi ct i on or se n ten c e w a s “ re v e rse d o n d ire c t ap p e a l, ex p u n g e d b ye x e c u tiv e o rd e r, d e c lar e d in v a lid b y a s t a t e tr i b u n a l a u th o r i z e d t o m a k e s u c h a d e t e rm i n a t i o n , o rc a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n b y a 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 .” 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 , 4 8 6 -8 7 (1 9 9 4 ). H er e, G i al l or enzo s eeks damages under§ 1983 forhi s i ncar cer at i on r es ul t i ng fr om th e a lle g e d ly u n c o n s titu tio n a l r e v o c a tio n o f h is b a il a n d is s u a n c e o f a d e ta in e r. A f a v o ra b le o u tco m e o n th is c laim w o u ld n e c e ss a rilyd e m o n stra te th e in v a lid ityo f h is det ent i on. Fur ther , G i al l or enzo ha s notes t abl i s hed thatthe s t at e court s i nval i dat ed the di s tr i ctj us t i ce’ s deci s i on t o r evoke hi s bai l orhonorthe det ai ner . A nd, as w e have re c e n tlym a d e c lea r, d ism iss a l o f a § 1 9 8 3 c laim is a p p ro p ria te d e sp ite th e f a c t th a t a l i t i gants uch as G i al l or enzo i s no l ongeri n cus t odyand ca n no l ongers eek f eder al habea s corpus r el i ef. See W i l l i ams v. C ons ovoy , 453 F. 3d 173, 177- 78 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ; G i l l es v. D avi s , 427 F. 3d 197, 210 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . T her efor e, H eck a nd i t s pr ogenypr ecl ude G i al l or enzo f

r om br i ngi ng thi s cl ai m under§ 1983. 1 Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatther e i s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on p rese n ted b ythis ap p ea l. A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s 2S tat e H o sp . , 2 9 3 F . 3 d 1 0 3 , 1 0 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 5 di s m i s s al of G i al l or enzo’ s compl ai nt . See Thi r d C i r . L A R 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. W e not e, h o w e v e r, t h a t a d is m is s a l p u rs u a n t to H e c k is n e c e s s a ri ly a w ith o u t- p re ju d ic e d is m is s a l. S ee F o tt ler v. U n it ed S tat es, 73 F . 3 d 1 0 6 5 , 1 0 6 5 -66 (10 cir. 1 9 9 6 ). th