2003 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
10-7-2003 

# Z iegle r v . Eb y P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-1126

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Z ie gle r v . Eb y " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 217. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/217NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

__________ No. 03-1126

__________ AAR ON Z IEGLER , bythe Estate of Aa ron Zie gler by R osa lie M . Zie gler , Ad min istratr ix, Appellant v. WILL IAM EB Y; L ARRY RAMPOL O; RIC HA RD F. B EIE RS CH M ITT , Sup erinten dent; MARY E. JOHN; MT. CARMEL AREA SCHOO L DISTRI CT; DONALD P. GEARY; BOROUGH OF MT. CARMEL

__________ On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the M iddle D istrict of P enns ylvania Civil Action No. 02-cv- 00618 Distric t Judg e: Ho nora ble M alcolm M uir

__________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit L. A.R. 34.1( a)

October 3, 2003

___________ Be for e: R EN DE LL , W EIS , and GA RT H, Circu it Judges

(Opinion Fi led: Oct ober 7, 2003)

__________ OPI NION

__________1 See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2 Ro mp allo’ s na me is m issp elled as “ Ra mp olo ” in th e ca ptio n. 3 W e w ill ref er to Ro salie Zie gler as “ Zie gler ” an d to Aa ron Zie gler as “ Aa ron .” -2- Ga rth, Circu it Judge : While a seni or in hi gh school, Aaron Ziegler recei ved a ten- day s uspension f or appeari ng to be under t

he infl uence of marij uana while on sc hool grounds. He was
arres ted one month l ater at schooland charged with severalmisdemeanors ar isi ng out of the al leged drug us e. Two police of ficer s transporte d Aaron to a loc al magist rate to be arraign ed. Fo llow ing h is grad uation from high scho ol, Aa ron p led no conte st to a sin gle misdemeanor charge of drug posse ssion pur suant t o a plea agreement with t he dist rict attorney. While awaiti ng sentenci ng, however, he took his own life. Aaron’s mother , Rosali e Ziegler , subse quently file d a Secti on 1983 1 lawsuit in her son’s name agai nst the arres ting pol ice offi cers ( LarryRompallo, 2 Willi am Eby, and Donald Geary) , the school di stri ct superintende nt (Richard Beiers chmitt ), t he high school princi pal (MaryJohn), the schooldist rict , and the localborough. 3 The complaint alle ges that the defe ndan ts violate d, and cons pired to violate , Aaro n’s F irst, Fou rth, and Sixth Am endm ent righ ts by plann ing an d carrying out a “ vind ictive co nspira cy intend ing to hum iliate, dem ean, a nd h arass” Aa ron, an d that “ his suic ide w as a rea sona bly fores eeab le result of their intentional m isconduc t.” (Comp laint ¶¶ 1, 28.) In fou r separate orde rs issued over a five -mo nth p eriod, th e D istrict Co urt gra nted s um mary jud gm ent to c ertain-3-

of the defe ndan ts (Be iersch mitt, Joh n, Eb y, and G eary) and dism issed th e com plaint a s to the r em ainin g de fen dan ts (th e sc hoo l distr ict an d R om pallo ). I. Although Ziegl er fil ed an amended noti ce of appeal on J anuary16, 2003, whic h specifically appealed f rom the D istrict Court’s Aug ust 9, 2002 order (granting summ ary judgment i n favor of Beier schmitt and John), Ziegler

had previous ly file d a notic e of app eal re adin g, “[ n]o tice is her eby g iven that t he . . . p laint iffs her eby a ppe als [ sic] . . . from the deci sion . . . f

or the U.S. Distri ct Court . . . e ntered on December 30, 2003 [sic] .” (Appellant ’s Appendix at 11.) The December 30, 2002 order, which grante d Eby and Ge ary’s m otio n fo r sum ma ry judg me nt, w as th e fin al or der ente red by the Dis trict C our t. While we would normally be guided, and have jurisdi ction ove r, t hose order s designated in th e no tice o f ap pea l, see Elf man M otors, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp. , 567 F.2d 1252, 1254 (3d C ir. 1977 ), here th e origin al notic e of a ppea l and th e am ende d no tice of appe al, both of w hich in clude d and spec ified th e D ecem ber 3 0, 200 2 fina l order , wo uld ap pear to bring up t

he District Court ’s earlier orders f or our re view. We note, however, that motions panel s of our court previ ouslygranted motions t o dismis s as part ies t o the appeal the fol lowing two defendant s: Rompall o and Mt. Carmel Area SchoolDistri ct. We agree with that resul t in par

t, first: because the brief on appeal submi tted by Ziegler addresse s primari ly the judgment

entere d in favor of Bei erschmit t (t he superi ntendent ) and John (the s chool pri ncipal ), and argues that theywere liable becaus e Aaron’s arrest on school-4-

grou nds w as “co ntrary to the stated c ustom ary policy of the de fend ants B eiersch mitt, Johns’ [s ic] and t

he School Dist

rict .” (Appell ant’s Brief at 8.) Second: the bri ef does not specifi call y i dentif

y the other de fendants a gainst whom relief i s sought, but only alle ges that the defendants sought to make Aaron an ob ject of ridi cule in order to ret aliate agai nst him; that when he arrived at the magist

rate’ s office to be arrai gned he was “held so t he press c ould arrive;” that he wa s a ne ws ite m o n the s ix o’clo ck ne ws; th at the d efen dants were not entitl ed to qual ifie d immunity ; that theyknew Aaron suffered from depr ession and was subject

to mentaland emotionalpressures; and t hat he was int

imidat ed and harasse d by the polic e. The Dis tric t C our

t h ad ju ri sd ic ti on p ur su an t to 28 U. S. C. Sec ti on 1 331 an d we ha ve ap pe lla te j ur isd ict io n u nd er 28 U .S .C . S ec tio n 1 29 1. O ur re vi ew is p len ar y. II. Zieg ler’s brie f do es no t refer to any evid ence subm itted on beha lf of Z iegler a nd in opp osition to the su mm ary judgm ent m otions or m otions to dism iss w hich w ere filed in the Dist rict Court. Nor does the bri ef distinguis h among the status or l iabil ity of the par ticul ar d efe nda nts. Am ong other is sues d iscusse d in Z iegler’s b rief, Zie gler arg ues o n app eal tha t, under the United State s Supreme Court’ s decis ions i n Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999) and Hanlon v. Berger, 526 U.S . 808 ( 199 9), the d efen dants are no t entitled to qualif ied immunity. The Supreme Court held i n those two companion cases that the4 Ca lda rola v. C oun ty of W estc hes ter, -- F.3d --, 2003 WL 22080 012 (2d Cir.

Sept. 9, 2003), a recent cas e from the Court of Appeals for t

he Second Circui t dis cussing alle gations simil ar to t

hose rai sed by Ziegler , hel d them not actionable
.

-5- Fourth A mend ment do es not perm it the police to bring the n ews m edia into a perso n’s hom e (o r on to re side ntial pro per ty) dur ing the e xec utio n of a w arra nt. See Wilson, 526 U.S . at 614 ; Hanlon, 526 U.S. at 809- 10. Here, thecomplaint alle ges that

the school offici als cons pired wit

h local policeto make an example of, and reta liate against , Aaron because of hi s refusa l to s ubmit t o a drug tes t on the day that he appeared to be under the influe nce of marij uana. (Complai nt ¶¶ 13-28. ) As we have stated, they al legedl y car ried out thi s conspir acy by

firs t arresti ng Aaron at the high schoolin handcuffs and leg shackles and then byalert ing the medi a and waiti ng for loca l reporters to arrive at the mag istrate’s o ffice befo re rem ovin g A aron from a polic e cruis er and esco rting him into the b uild ing . ( Id. ) Following a careful and independent review of the record, we have determine d that it i s not neces saryfor us t o decide whether the poli ce viol ated the Fourth Amendment by alle gedlyalert

ing the ne ws media to Aaron’s arres t and waiting for t hem to arri ve at the magistr ate’s office before removing Aaron fr om the poli ce vehicl e. 4 See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S . 403, 4 17 (2 002 ) (exp laining that fe deral ju diciary ha s an o bligatio n “to
avo id d ecid ing con stitutio nal is sue s ne edle ssly”). The Distri ct Court de termine d, and we agree, that t he uncontrove rted evi dence does not suppor

t the f actualalle gations in the c omplaint . The Chief of Pol ice, who-6-

accompanied Aaron t o the loc al magist rate’ s office, submitted an affidavi t st ating t hat he and Rompallo “did not

delaytaking Zi egler be fore Dist rict Justi ce Mychak for arraignment.” (Appellant’s Appendix at 95, ¶ 8.) The other poli ce officer who remains a partyto thi s appeal s ubmitt ed an affidavi t sweari ng that hedid not eve n accompany Aaron to the magi strate’s office. (Appellant ’s Appendix at 98, ¶ 9. ) Ziegl er did not submit any

evidence to refute these or any ot her affi davits produced byany of t he defend ants. And the com plaint was n ot verified, thereby preclud ing the D istrict Court from treating it as the e quiv alent o f an a ffida vit for p urpo ses of Fed eral R ule of Civil Pro ced ure 56( e). See, e.g., Reese v. Sparks, 760 F.2d 64, 67 ( 3d Cir. 1985) (tr eati ng verifi ed complaint

as an affi davit on s ummary judgment motion). Nor is the re any evide nce in the rec ord w hich s ugg ests tha t the po lice or sc hoo l offic ials con spired to invo lve the med ia in a p lan to re taliate ag ainst A aron . Indee d, the D istrict Co urt in its August 9, 2002 or der pert aining to Beierschmi tt and J ohn, made findi ngs of fact ba sed on this un contro verted evide nce a nd co nclud ed tha t:

With respe ct to Pla intiff’s re main ing cla ims it is d ifficu lt to understan d how Defe ndants B eierschmitt and John vio lated Aaro n Ziegler’s consti tuti onal ri ghts. Aaron Ziegler committed s uicide69 days after he grad uated from high scho ol and 145 days afte r the co nclus ion o f his suspensi on. We are unaware of anycase where a court has i mposed a consti tuti onal duty

on a school offi cial to prevent a student ’s sui cide after the st udent has gr aduated fr om the school and is no l onger withi n the school’ s contr ol when the sui cide occur red. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not presented any e vidence sugge sti ng that Aaron Zi egler was s uicidal when he attend ed sc hoo l, that D efen dants Beie rschm itt or Joh n w ere aw are of his suici dal te ndencies or

that t hey fai led to t ake appropri ate action.*-7- * Again, Plainti ff has fai led to e xplain by way of affi davit whyshe could not “ present

by affi davit f

acts es senti al to j usti fy” her opp osition to the m otion f or sum mary jud gm ent. (A ppe llant ’s A ppe ndi x at 2 6-2 7.) III.

Ziegler also ar gues on appeal that t here are no facts c ontroverting t he remaini ng alle gations in the c omplaint , such as the cl aim that Aaron’s arrest on sc hool grou nds w as a p lanne d eve nt or tha t he w as arre sted in r etaliation for h is refu sal to su bm it to a drug test. We are sati sfied, however, that even i f those al legations maybe deemed true, (an d as n oted th ere is n o evid ence supp orting th em), th e def enda nts did not v iolate any “c learl y es tabli shed” ri ght under t he First , Fourth, or Si xth Amendments and ther efo re ar e en titled to q ualif ied im mu nity. See Wils on, 526 U.S . at 609 . We also n ote that t he connecti on between the defe ndants’ alle ged conduct i n March and April of 2001 and Aaron’s sui cide on August 13, 2001 is t oo legal ly atte nuated, both because of the pas sag e of time and Aa ron ’s int erce din g hi gh s cho ol g rad uatio n.

For the foregoing rea sons, t he judgment of t

he dist rict court wil l be AFFI RMED.
TO THE C LERK: Please fi le theforegoing opi nion.
/s/ Leo nard I. Gar th Circuit Judge