B L D - 148 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- 4360

___________ BE RN A RD F. W O O D S, A ppel l ant v. B R IA N G R A N T ; M A R K G R A JE W S K I; TERRY O’ CO NN OR ; TRA VI S M CD ERM OTT

____________________________________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 08- cv- 0396) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on

____________________________________ S u b m itted f

o r P o ssible D ism issal Pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) orSum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6 M ar ch 11, 2010 B efore: M cK E E , C hief J ud ge, R E N D E L L and C H A G A R E S , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: M ay21, 2010)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C UR I AM A pp el l ant B ernar d F . W oo ds, a pro se pr i s oner , appea l s fr om an or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof D efe ndant s . Forthe r eas ons s et2

f o rt h b e lo w , w e w ill s u m m a ri ly af f ir m . S e e I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . I . W oods fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n t he D i s tr i ctC our tpur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 al l egi ng thati n Sept ember2007, B r i an G r ant( “G r ant ”) and M ark G r aj ew s ki (“G rajew sk i”), d etec ti v es w ith the N ew C astl e C o u n tyP o li ce D ep artm en t ( “N C C P D ”), and Ter ryO ’ C onnor( “O ’ C onnor ”) , a pol i ce of fi cerw i th the N C C PD K - 9 uni t , us ed e x c e s s i v e f

o r c e w h i l e e x e c u t i n g s e a r c h a n d a rr e s tw a rr a n t s a g a i n s th i m . S p e c i f i c a l l y, W oods cl ai m s thatw hi l e he w as handcuf fed a nd dow n on the gr ound, G r aj ew s ki ki cked a n d p u n c h e d h i m i n th e h e a d a n d f a c e , r e p e a t e d l yu s e d a t a s e ro n h i m, a n d h e l d h i m d o wn wh i l e O’ Co n n o ra l l o we d a p o l i c e K- 9 d o g t o a t t a c k h i m. D efe ndant s cl ai m thatW oods beca m e vi ol entw hen theyatt empt ed t o exec ut e the w arr ant s . A ppar ent l y , W oods w as s i t t i ng on the curb i n fr ontof hi s r es i dence w hen G r aj ew s ki and G r antarr i ved w i th s ever al otheras s i s t i ng offi cer s . D efe ndant s as s ertt hat G r anti dent i fi ed hi m s el f as a pol i ce of fi cerand as ked W oods t o l ayon the gr ound, but thatW oods w oul d notcompl y . A ft ertry i ng t o pl ace W oods on the gr ound, W oods s t ood up and moved t ow ar d G r anti n an aggr es s i ve manner . A tthatpoi nt , G r antus ed hi s t as er on W oods . A l though W oods w entdow n on one knee , he i m m edi at el ys t ood up and bega n t o run t ow ar ds G r ant . A s W oods advanc ed, G r antadmi ni s t er ed a pa l m heel br achi al s tun w hi ch ca us ed W oods t o fal l i nt o a tr ee. G r antagai n us ed hi s t as eron W oods , butW oods p u n c h e d h im in th e f

a c e a n d th e tw o c o n tin u e d to s tru g g le .3

A n as s i s t i ng pol i ce of

fi certhen us ed a t as eron W oods , buti tappea r ed t o have no eff ecton W oods . W oods then att empt ed t o fl ee a nd w as pur s ued on footbyG r antand G r aj ew s ki . W oods punched G r aj ew s ki i n the fa ce be for e he w as fi nal l ypl ace d on the gr ound. W oods att empt ed t o puthi s hands i n hi s pocket s and the D efe ndant s bel i eved W oods m i ghthave ha d a conc eal ed w eapon. D efe ndant s us ed the t as eronce a gai n, but W oods r emai ned combat i ve. Soon aft er , O ’ C onnorand hi s K - 9 partnerarr i ved atthe sc e n e . W o o d s re f

u se d a ll co m m a n d s to sto p re sis tin g a n d p lac e h is h a n d s b e h in d h is b a c k . O ’C o n n o r to ld W o o d s to sto p re sis tin g a rre st a n d w a rn e d h im th a t th e K -9 w o u ld b e d e p lo y e d if

h e d id n o t c o m p ly. W o o d s c o n tin u e d to re s is t a n d th e K -9 w a s re le a s e d . T he K - 9 bi tW oods and the D efe ndant s br i efl ygai ned contr ol overW oods . A l though theyw er e abl e t o handcuf f W oods ’ w r i s t s and ankl es , W oods br oke fr ee of the fl ex cuf

fs and bega n ki cki ng the off i cer s . O ’ C onnoragai n r el eas ed the K - 9, the K - 9 bi tW oods , and the D efe ndant s gai ned contr ol overW oods and pl ace d hi m i n the patr ol car . H e w as ta k e n to a h o s p ita l f

o r t re a tm e n t a n d w a s la te r r e le a s e d a n d ta k e n to N C C P D . O n c e W o o d s a rriv e d a t N C C P D , h e w a iv e d h is rig h ts a n d a g re e d to sp e a k w ith De f e n d a n tT r a v i s M c De r mo t t( “ M c De r mo t t ” ) , a p o l i c e p a tr o l ma n . Du r i n g th e i n t e r v i e w, h e to ld M c D e rm o tt th a t th e re w e re tw o h a n d g u n s in th e b a s e m e n t c e ilin g o f h is re s id e n c e . B a se d u p o n th o se sta tem e n ts, G ra n t an d G ra jew sk i o b tain e d a se c o n d se a rc h w a rra n t to r ecove rthe w eapons . E xecut i on of the s econd s ear ch w arr antr es ul t ed i n the r ecove ryof tw o h a n d g u n s a n d a d ig ita l s c a le . W o o d s c la im s th a t M c D e rm o tt f a b ri c a te d h is s ta te m e n t.T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or deral s o deni ed W oods ’ pr evi ous l yfi l ed mot i on t o compel and 1 m ot i on forext ens i on of t i m e. 4 H e further al l eges t hat G rant , G raj ew ski , and M cD erm ottcon spi red t o u se the fa l se sta tem e n t in o rd e r to p e rsu a d e a ju d g e to iss u e th e se c o n d se a rc h w a rra n t. A tthe close of dis cov ery , D efen dan t s m ov ed fo r s um m aryj ud gm ent on W oo ds’ cl ai m s thattheyus ed exc es s i ve for ce a gai ns thi m , engage d i n a cons pi r acy , and obt ai ned a s ear ch w arr antbas ed upon a f al s i fi ed s t at ement . T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatno genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac texi s tw i th r egar d t o anyof W oods ’ cl ai m s and gr ant ed D e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. W o o d s f iled a tim e lya p p e a l. 1 I I . We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth i s a p p e a l p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 . We r e v i e w a D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo. Penns y l vani a C oal A s s ’ n v. B ab b itt, 6 3 F . 3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). S u m m aryjud g m en t i s p rop er o n lyif i t app ea rs

“ th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial f a c t an d th a t th e m o v a n t is e n tit led to j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) ; C arr as ca v. Pom er oy , 313 F. 3d 828, 832- 33 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . I f a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm entdemonstr at es thatno genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac texi s t s , the nonmovi ng partym us ts etfor th s peci fi c fa ct s s how i ng a g e n u in e m a ter ial iss u e f o r tria l an d m a yn o t re st u p o n th e m e re a lleg a tio n s o r d e n ials o f its p le a d in g s . C o n n o rs v . F a w n M in in g C o rp ., 3 0 F .3 d 4 8 3 , 4 8 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ).5 III . 1 . E x c e ss iv e F o rc e C laim T o s ucce ed on a § 1983 c l ai m , a pl ai nt i ff musts how thatthe def endant , act i ng underof col orof s t at e l aw , depr i ved hi m of a f eder al r i ght . W es tv. A t ki ns , 487 U . S. 42, 48 ( 1988) . I n eval uat i ng w hethera pl ai nt i ff’ s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed byan arr es t i ng offi cer ’ s us e of f

or ce, a courtm us tdet erm i ne w hetherthe off i cer ’ s act i ons i n gai ni ng cus t odyof the pl ai nt i ff w er e “obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e. ” Scottv. H arr i s , 550 U . S. 372, 381 ( 2007) ; G r aham v. C onnor , 490 U . S. 386, 397 ( 1989) . Fact or s t o be cons i der ed i ncl ude th e s e v e r i ty o f

th e c r i m e , w h e th e rth e s u s p e c tp o s e d a n i m m e d i a t e th r e a tt o p u b l i c s a f e ty, and w hetherthe s us pectw as act i vel yr es i s t i ng orevadi ng arr es t . See G r aham, 490 U . S. at 3 9 6 ; C a rs w e ll v . B o ro u g h o f H o m e s te a d , 3 8 1 F .3 d 2 3 5 , 2 4 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s entr yof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof D efe ndant s w as pr operbeca us e ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac t . T o over come t he D e f e n d a n ts’ a rg u m e n t th a t su m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s w a rra n ted , W o o d s h a d to “ se t f o rth sp e c if ic f a c ts” a n d p re se n t m o re th a n a “ m e re e x iste n c e o f a sc in til la o f

e v id e n c e ” in h is favor . A nder s on v. L i bertyL obby , I nc. , 477 U . S. 242, 252, 256 ( 1986) . W oods di d not p re se n t an ye v id e n c e in su p p o rt o f h is c laim , an d m e re lyre ste d u p o n th e a lleg a tio n s o f h is compl ai nt . M or eover , hi s ar gum entthatD efe ndant s us ed an unr eas onabl e amountof for ce i n exec ut i ng the w arr anti s notborne outbythe r ecor d. D ur i ng the exe cut i on of the arr es tw arr ant , W oods cont i nual l yr es i s t ed arr es t , w as6

aggr es s i ve and c om bat i ve, and w oul d notr es pond t o the off i cer s ’ r eques t s even a ft ert hey us ed the t as er . I n addi t i on, al though the D efe ndant s w er e abl e t o pl ace a fl ex- cuff on W o o d s a t o n e p o in t, h e b ro k e f re e o f th e re s tr a in t a n d c o n tin u e d to re s is t a rr e s t. M o re o v e r, th e D e f

e n d a n ts o b se rv e d W o o d s re a c h in g f o r h is p o c k e ts, c a u sin g th e m to bel i eve he m i ghthave ha d a conc eal ed w eapon. A ccor di ngl y , on thi s r ecor d, W oods cannots how thatthe D efe ndant s ’ us e of f or ce w as exce s s i ve. W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ct C o u rt th a t th e d e g re e o f p h y sic a l f

o rc e a p p lied b yth e D e f e n d a n ts a p p e a rs r e a so n a b le beca us e i tw as pr opor t i onal t o t he nee d forfor ce, es peci al l yi n l i ghtof W oods ’ act i ve r es i s t ance t o arr es t . G r aham, 490 U . S. at396. 2. Sear ch W arr ant W oods al l eges thatG r ant , G r aj ew s ki , and M cD erm ot tcons pi r ed t o obt ai n a s econd s ear ch w arr antbas ed upon fa l s e i nform at i on. A l i t i gantw ho chal l enges the val i di tyof a sear ch w arr ant on t he b asi s that a l aw enfo rcem ent agent s ub m i t t ed a f al se st at em ent m ust s at i s fythe tw o- partt es tof Fr anks v. D el aw ar e, 438 U . S. 154, 155- 56 ( 1978) . See S h e rw o o d v . M u l v i h i l l , 1 1 3 F . 3 d 3 9 6 , 3 9 9 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) . A p l a i n t i f f m u s tp r o v e b y a pr eponder ance thatthe age ntknow i ngl yand del i ber at el y , orw i th r eckl es s di s r egar d for the truth , m ad e f

alse statem en ts i n ap p ly ing fo r a w arran t, an d that the s tat em en ts w ere m a te ri a l o r n e c e s s a ry to th e p ro b a b le c a u s e f in d in g . Id . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ydet erm i ned thatW oods fai l ed t o s etfor th any evidence sho w i ng that D efen dan t s “ kno w i ng l yand deli berat el y ” or “w i th a reckles sI n W oods ’ r es pons e t o D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , he s ugges t ed for 2 the fi r s tt i m e thatthe D efe ndant s cons pi r ed aga i ns thi m beca us e of hi s r ace . W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatt o t he ext entthatW oods w as att empt i ng r ai s e a c l ai m under 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 9 8 5 , th e c l a i m a l s o f a i l s . Wo o d s h a s n o ta l l e g e d a n yf a c t s f r o m w h i c h we can i nferthatD efe ndant s col l uded w i th the r equi s i t e di s cr i m i nat oryani m us t o depr i ve hi m of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . See Farberv. C i tyof Pat er s on, 440 F. 3d 131, 135 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). 7 d is re g a rd f

o r t h e tru th ” f

a ls if ie d a s ta te m e n t in o rd e r t o p ro c u re a s e c o n d s e a rc h w a rr a n t. A ccor di ngl y , w e agr ee thatther e i s an i ns uffi ci entevi dent i arybas i s upon w hi ch a r e a s o n a b l e j u r yc o u l d f

i n d i n W o o d s ’ f

a v o ro n th i s c l a i m. 3. C ons pi r acy T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o pr oper l yent er ed j udgm enti n favorof the D efe ndant s on W oods ’ cl ai m of a c ons pi r acyunder§ 1983. I n or dert o demonstr at e the exi s t ence of a cons pi r acyunder§ 1983, “a pl ai nt i ff musts how thattw o orm or e cons pi r at or s r eac hed an agr eementt o depr i ve hi m orherof a c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtundercol orof l aw . ” Parkw ay G ar age, I nc. v. C i tyof Phi l a. , 5 F. 3d 685, 700 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ct C o u rt th a t W o o d s f

a iled to p re se n t an ye v id e n c e th a t w o u ld sa tisf yth a t re q u ire m e n t. 2 4. T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s R ul i ngs on W oods ’ O ut s t andi ng M ot i ons A s m e n tio n e d , the D istric t C o u rt a lso ru led o n W o o d s’ tw o o u tsta n d in g m o tio n s in i t s Oct o b e r2 3 , 2 0 0 9 d e c i s i o n g r a n t i n g Def e n d a n t s ’ mot i o n f

o rs u mma ryj u d g me n t . To th e e x te n t W o o d s a ls o a p p e a ls f ro m th o s e ru lin g s , w e a f f ir m . Fi r s t , the D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ydeni ed W oods ’ m ot i on t o compel . W oods s erved i nt err ogat or i es on t he D efe ndant s on A pr i l 22, 2009, and s ubm i t t ed a r eques tfor8

document s on J une 3, 2009. D efe ndant s ans w er ed the maj or i tyof the i nt err ogat or i es , but o b je c te d to th e re q u e s t f

o r d o c u m e n ts b e c a u s e it w a s f ile d a f te r t h e d is c o v e ry d e a d lin e . W oods s oughtan or dercompel l i ng the D efe ndant s t o ans w erthe i nt err ogat or i es and c o m p lyw ith th e d o c u m e n t re q u e st. W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e D e f e n d a n ts adequa t el yr es ponded t o t he i nt err ogat or i es , des pi t e havi ng obj ect ed t o tw enty - tw o of the tw enty -fi ve o f t hem . F urtherm ore, as evi den ced b ythe ex hibi t s at t ached t o D efen dan t s’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , W oods w as pr ovi ded w i th num er ous document s r egar di ng hi s cl ai m s dur i ng the l i t i gat i on. W oods al s o appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on forext ens i on of tim e . In Ju n e 2 0 0 9 , the D e f e n d a n ts m o v e d to c o m p e l W o o d s to c o m p lyw ith th e ir di s coveryr eques t . W oods di d nots eek a n ext ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e a r es pons e t o the m ot i on unt i l near l ythee mont hs l at er . N everthel es s , i n i t s O ct ober23, 2009 or der , the D i stri ctC ou rtexp l i ci t l yst at ed thatW oo ds did not have to provide the d i scoverybecau se De f e n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n f

o rs u mm a r yj u d g me n two u l d b e g r a n t e d . Ac c o r d i n g l y , b e c a u s e we aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o gr antD efe ndant s ’ s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on, W o o d s ’ a p p e a l o f

th e d e n ia l o f

h is m o tio n f

o r e x te n s io n o f

tim e is m o o t. A s W oods ’ appea l pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m . See T h ir d C ir . L A R 2 7 .4 ; I .O .P . 1 0 .6 .