2005 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 6-29-2005 

# B o atne r v . Hind s 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 . 05-1320

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_2005

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 2005 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 " Bo atne r v . Hind s " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 944. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/944C PS-197 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 . 05- 1320

________________ HARRY BOA TNE R, A ppel l ant

v. SA N D R A H I N D S, J ai l N ur s e; M E L I SSA A M O D I E , D i s t r i ctJ us t i ce; T O M SA N SO N E , D et ect i ve; W I L L I A M F. H A L L , W ar den; N E W C A ST L E PO L I C E D E PT . ; D A V I D C U M O , Pol i ce O ffi cer

_____________________________________ 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 ( D . C . C i v. N o. 02- cv- 01671) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A r t hurJ . Schw ab

_______________________________________ S u b m itted F o r P o ssible D ism issal U n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) A pr i l 7, 2005 B efor e: A L I T O , M cK E E and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed J une 29, 2005 )

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AMB oatneral s o appea r s t o s eek i nj unct i ve r el i ef, butnow her e i s i tm ade c l earw hat 1 s peci fi c i nj unct i ve r el i ef i s r eques t ed. 2 H arr yB oatnerappea l s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s unfavor abl e r es ol ut i on of hi s compl ai nt s eeki ng m onet arydamages under42 U . S. C . § 1983. B eca us e w e conc l ude thatthe 1 compl ai ntfai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c an be gr ant ed and s eeks m onet aryr el i ef againstdefe nd ants w ho are i m m un e, and becau se the ap peal i s fr i vo l ou s, w e w i l l dis m i ss u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). O n Ju ly1 7 , 2 0 0 2 , B o a tn e r a ttem p ted to b u rg lar ize a sc h o o l. W h ile b re a k in g in to t he bui l di ng, he i nj ur ed hi s hand and w entt o a nea rbyhos pi t al fors t i t ches . B oatnerw as arrested af

ter po li ce d isco v ere d d iscard ed b loo d stai n ed cloth ing in the h o sp it al’s bathr oom . T he cl ot hi ng m at ched thos e w orn bythe s us pectas des cr i bed bys ever al w i t nes s es att he s cene . T he pol i ce appl i ed fora s ear ch w arr antt o t ake Boat ner ’ s bl ood and mat ch i tagai ns tt he bl ood found on the cl othes and atthe s chool . T he w arr ant appl i cat i on w as gr ant ed. Sever al offi cer s r etr i eved Boat nerfr om a j ai l hol di ng ar ea a nd w hen theyi nform ed hi m of the w arr ant , he r es i s t ed, i nj ur i ng O ffi cerSans one. D ur i ng t he extr act i on, t he nur s e mi s s ed fi ndi ng a vei n s ever al t i m es due t o B oatner ’ s s t ruggl i ng, but th e n w ip e d b lo o d f

ro m a w o u n d h e s u f

f e re d w h ile re s is tin g th e e s c o rt in g o f f ic e rs . O n Sept ember30, 2002, B oatnerfi l ed an a ct i on under§ 1983 agai ns ts i x named defe ndant s . Speci fi cal l y , B oatnercl ai m s nur s e Sandr a H i nes t ook hi s bl ood w i t hout cons ent ; N ew C as t l e C ount yD i s t r i ctJ us t i ce A m odi e i s s ued a s ear ch w arr antw i t hout pr obabl e ca us e; O ffi cerSans one us ed exc es s i ve for ce; O ffi cerC um o arr es t ed hi m w i thout3

pr obabl e ca us e; W ar den H al l empl oy ed w or ker s w ho comm i t t ed unl aw ful act s , and the N ew C as t l e C ount yPol i ce D epart m ent“di d empl oyan abus i ve pol i ce of fi cer . ” O n February19, 2004, t he D i s t r i ctC our tei t herdi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntorgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entas t o al l cl ai m s and part i es w i t h t he exc ept i on of the exc es s i ve for ce cl ai m agai ns tO ffi cerSans one. O n J ul y14, 2004, B oatnerm oved t o amend hi s compl ai nt a d d in g tw o n e w d e f

e n d a n ts: M a

jo r M icc o f

o r u sin g th re a ts a n d e x c e ss iv e f o rc e to h o ld h is arm dur i ng t he w i t hdr aw al of bl ood, and C apt ai n A damo w ho al l egedl yas s aul t ed and i n j u r e d Bo a t n e rd u r i n g a n u n i d e n t i f i e d i n c i d e n t . T h e mo t i o n t o a me n d wa s d e n i e d . On Jan u ary3 , 2 0 0 5 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted D ef en d an t Sa n so n e’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j ud gm ent. B oatnert hen fi l ed thi s appea l chall eng i ng each o f t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s orders . W ith re sp e c t to h is c laim s a g a in st J u stic e A m o d ie a n d N u rse H in e s, th e d e f e n d a n ts ar e i m m une fr om s ui t . T her e i s no doubtJ us t i ce A m odi e i s ent i t l ed t o abs ol ut e j udi ci al i m m uni t yfort he ac tof and c ons equenc es s t emm i ng fr om the i s s uance of the s ear ch w arran t. S ee G all as v . S u p rem e C o u rto f P en n sy lvan ia, 2 1 1 F . 3 d 7 6 0 , 7 6 8 -69 (3d C ir . 2000) . D efe ndantH i nes i s al s o i m m une fr om s ui t . A n “ac t i on t aken pur s uantt o a fac i al l yval i d cour tor derr ece i ves abs ol ut e i m m uni t yfr om § 1983 l aw s ui t s fordamages . ” H ami l t on v. L eavy , 322 F. 3d 776, 782- 83 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . N ur s e H i nes w as act i ng pur s uantt o a fa ci al l yval i d w arr antt o w i t hdr aw bl ood. A ccor di ngl y , A m odi e and H i nes ar e abs ol ut el yi m m une fr om s ui tunder§ 1983.4

W i t h r es pectt o O ffi cer s C um o and Sans one, an appe al fr om the deni al of the c laim s is f

riv o lo u s. B o a tn e r’s c laim a g a in st C u m o c a n n o t b e su sta in e d . P ro b a b le c a u se is det erm i ned byt he t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s . See I l l i noi s v. G at es , 462 U . S. 213, 233 ( 1983) . B as ed on C um o’ s aff i davi tof pr obabl e ca us e, the fa ctual bas i s of w hi ch goes lar g e lyu n c h a llen g e d , the re c a n b e n o d o u b t th a t p ro b a b le c a u se e x iste d . W ith re sp e c t to O f f ice r S a n so n e , the c laim is e q u a llyf riv o lo u s. A y e a r a f

ter f ili n g th e in iti a l co m p lain t, B o a tn e r w a s c o n v ic te d a n d s e n te n c e d o n c h a rg e s s te m m in g f ro m h is a s s a u lt o n S a n s o n e . A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, B oatneradmi t t ed thathe had no r ecol l ect i on of the eve ntand s t a t e d , “ I wo u l d b e mo r e a p tt o t a k e h i s [ S a n s o n e ’ s ] wo r d a b o u twh a th a p p e n e d th a n my o w n , b e c a u se I d o n ’t k n o w .” B o a tn e r p re se n ts n o o th e r e v id e n c e to su p p o rt h is a lle g a tio n s . W i t h r es pectt o W ar den H al l and the N ew C as t l e C ount yPol i ce D epart m ent , s ee B onenber gerv. Pl ym out h T ow ns hi p, 132 F. 3d 20, 25 n. 4 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( “w e tr eatthe m uni ci pal i t yand i t s pol i ce de par t m entas a s i ngl e ent i t yforpurpos es of § 1983 l i abi l i t y . ”) , B oatnerfai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m . A governm entent i t ym aybe l i abl e forthe a c tio n s o f

its e m p lo y e e s o n lyif

th e p lain tiff

id e n tifie s a p o licyo r c u sto m th a t am o u n ts to de l i be r a t e i nd i ff

e r e nc e t o i nd i vi du a l r i gh t s . Se e Ci t yof Cant on , O hi o v . H a r r i s , 48 9 U. S. 378, 388- 89 ( 1989) ; N at al e v. C amden C ount yC orr . Faci l i t y , 318 F. 3d 575, 583- 84 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . B eca us e i n nei t hercas e does B oatneral l ege a nypol i cyorcus t om thatcaus ed t h e a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n , h e f a i l s t o s t a t e a c l a i m.5

Fi nal l y , w e r evi ew t he deni al of a mot i on t o amend a compl ai ntforabus e of d is c re tio n . S e e F ra s e r v . N a tio n w id e M u t. I n s . C o ., 3 5 2 F .3 d 1 0 7 , 1 1 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed B oatner ’ s m ot i on t o amend becaus e fi r s t , the i ncl us i on of the t w o new defe ndant s cons t i tut ed undue de l ay . A tl eas tw i t h r es pectt o M i cco, B oatnerw as aw ar e of the bas i s fora compl ai ntatthe t i m e of f i l i ng. H e s t at es he fe ar ed r et al i at i on fr om M i cco, butpr ovi des no bas i s fors uch as s um pt i ons . Second, w i t h r es pectt o A damo, B oatnerfai l s t o i ndi cat e how A damo i s connec t ed t o t he curr entact i on. D efe ndi ng agai ns ts uch a c l ai m w oul d cl ear l ypr ej udi ce the def ens e. A ccor di ngl y , an appe al fr om t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s decis i on i s fr i vo l ou s. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, th e a p p e a l is u tterlylac k in g in leg a l m e rit. W e w ill di s m i s s under28 U . S. C . §§ 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) - ( i i i ) . B oatner ’ s r eques tforappoi nt m entof couns el on appea l i s deni ed.