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
7-30-2003 

# C a r r ol l v . Ro chfor d
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 . 02-3771

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
" C a r r o l l v . Rochfor d " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 333. 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_2003/333* The Honorable Cynthia Holcomb Hall, Circuit J udge for the Ninth Circ uit, sitting by d esig natio n. NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 02-3771
WILLIAM AND AN NE MARIE CARROLL

v. ED W AR D R OC HF OR D, ind ividua lly and in his o fficial cap acity a s M orris C oun ty She riff; JAC K D EM PSE Y, ind ividua lly and in his ca pacity as M orris C oun ty Unde rs herif

f; MORRIS COUNTY SHERI FF’ S DEPARTMENT; JOHN B. DANGLER, in his offi cial capacity as Morris County Pr osecutor ; MICHA EL LO WE , indi viduall y and in his capacity as Int ernal Aff airs Officer

with the Morri s County Sheri ff’s Office; RIC HA RD RO SE , individ ually a nd in his cap acity a s De tective o f the M orris C oun ty Prosecut or’s Off

ice; ANT HON Y CA LAM ITO, indi viduall y and in his capacity as Dete ct ive of t

he Morris County Pro sec uto r’ s Off ic e; MORRIS COUNTY PROSE CUTO R’S OFFICE; CO UNT Y OF M ORR IS; JOHN DO ES 1-6; fi ctit ious names for i ndividual s as yet

unknown, Edward V. Rochford and Jack Dempsey,

Ap pellan ts
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FOR

THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (Dist. Court No. 99-CV-05669) Distric t Cou rt Judg e: W illiam H . W alls Argued on June 16, 2003 Befo re: AL ITO , ROTH, HALL, * Circuit Judges-2- Opinion Fil ed: Jul y 30, 2003

Den nis A. D urkin, Esqu ire John A . Testa, Esqu ire Du rkin & Du rkin 1120 Bloomfiel d Avenue Suite 204 West Caldwell, NJ 07007 Counsel for

Appellees Frederi c M. Knapp Step hen E . Trim boli Courter, Kobert, Lauf

er & Cohen 23 Cattano Avenue Morristown, NJ 07960 Co unse l for Ap pellan ts
OPINI ON OF THE COURT

PE R C URI AM: Edward V. Rochford, the Sherif f of Morris County, and Undersher iff Jack Dempsey contend that

the Dist rict Court erred in denyi ng their qualif ied-i mmunity summary judgment moti on as to Will iam Carrol l’s 42 U. S.C. §1983 cl aim all eging a violat ion of hi s consti tuti onal ri ght to f reedom of ass ociation. As a pur e questi on of law is at is sue , we exe rcise plen ary rev iew ove r a D istrict Co urt’s dec ision
. McLaughlin v. Watson , 271 F.3 d 56 6, 57 0 (3 d C ir. 20 01) , cert . den ., 535 U.S . 989 (200 2). Government offi cial s performing discretionary functions ar e affor ded quali fied1 A g over nm ent off icial ma y be h eld pe rsona lly liable fo r an o fficial actio n on ly

wh ere the conto urs of th e partic ular righ t alleged ly viola ted are “suffic iently c lear tha t a reasonabl e offi cialwould underst and that what he is doi ng violates that right .” Anderson v. Crei ghton , 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1982). The clari ty of t he right at is sue is e valuat ed at the time the o fficia l’s alle ged ly u nlaw ful a ction wa s tak en, Harlow , 457 U.S. at 818, and an offi cialmay be entitled to i mmunity if “based on the information avai lableto them they could have bel ieved that the ir conduct would be consis tent wit h” contemporaneous gov ern ing lega l prin ciple s. Good v. Dauphin County SocialServices for Chil dren and Yo uth , 891 F.2d 1087, 1092 (3d Cir. 1989)
. -3- imm uni ty fro m c ivil d am age s in s uits b rou ght pur sua nt to Sec tion 198 3. Harlow v. Fitzge rald , 457 U.S. 800, 819 (1982). A two-part st andard is used to determine whether pub lic of ficia ls are entit led to qua lified imm uni ty. Sau cier v. K atz , 533 U.S.194, 200-02 (200 1). First, a c ourt m ust de termin e (bas ed on the vie w o f the fac ts that is pe rtinent to the proce dural s tage at

which the moti on is made) whethe r the of fici al’s conduct vi olate d
a co nstitu tion al rig ht. Id . at 201. Second, if t

he fact s show that a

right has indeed be en violated, a court must determine, as a matt er of l aw, whether the consti tuti onal ri ght was “cle arly esta blish ed” at the time of th e of ficia l’s ac tion
. Id
. 1 This second s tep of t he analysi s requi res a court to bot h define t

he right at is sue with a s uffi cient degree of spe cific ity, Anderson v. Crei ghton , 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987), and to anal yze the f acts of the c ase in lig ht o f rele van t cas e law exta nt at t he tim e ofthe a llege d co ndu ct. McLaughlin v. Watson , 271 F.3d 566, 572 (2001). If a moti on for summary j udgment based on quali fied i mmunity is de nied, the defe ndant may under some circumstance s take an im me diate app eal u nde r the colla teral ord er d octr ine. See Johnson v. J ones , 515 U. S. 304, 312 (1995).-4-

In Forbes v. Township of Lower Merion , 313 F.3 d 14 4, 14 6 (3 d C ir. 20 02) , we announced a supervisory r ule that appli es when a District Court denies a qua lif

ied immunity summ ary judgment motion. This rule requires District Courts to “specif y those mate rial facts th at are a nd ar e not s ubjec t to gen uine d ispute a nd ex plain th eir materi alit

y.” Id . As we discuss ed in Forbes , this rule is d esign ed to a ssist us in determining whe ther we h ave jurisdiction to en tertain the appeal. U nder Jones , “a defendant , entitl ed to invokea quali fied i mmunity defens e, may not appe al a di stri ct court’ s summary judgment order ins ofar as that order dete rmines whether or not t he pretrial record set s fort

h a ‘genuine ’ iss ue of fact for trial .” Id . at 31 9-2 0. R athe r, a defendant

may appeal theDistri ct Court’ s coll atera l order only as t o the purel y legal ques tion of w hethe r the C ourt m ade a n erro r of law , in wh ich ca se “the cour t of app eals can simply t ake, as gi ven, the fact s that the dis tri ct court

assumed when it deni ed summary judgment f

or that (purel y legal ) reas on.” Id . at 319. The rule announce d in Forbes is appl icabl e in thematter now before us as t

he Distri ct Court rejected the def endant’s summary judgment moti on, which was based on qualif ied immunity, upon a det ermination that “there was a genuine i ssue of mat erialfact regardi ng the is sue of pol iti cal re tali ation by Defe ndants. ” App. at 9 (Dis t. Ct . Letter Or der , Sep tem ber 25, 2 002 , at 3)
. Our rev iew of the re cord reve als that the District Cou rt did not identif

y the particular

facts that

are in dispute or explai n the materiali ty of those2 In de nyin g the a ppella nt’s m otion, th e D istrict Co urt sim ply state d that “ [t]aken in

the li ght most f

avorableto Plai ntif

f, Rochford and Dempsey’s conduct c ould show that they viol ated Carr oll’ s Firs t Amendment Right t o not be hara ssed for his pol iti cal belie fs. ” App. at 10 (Dis t. Ct . Letter Order, September 25, 2002, at 4). The court went on to note t hat [b]oth Roch ford and D empse y we re direct superiors to C arroll and w ere alle gedly thepoliticalrival s of John Fox. According to Pl ainti ff, they caused him t o be demoted, harassed at work, wrongful ly charge d and termin ated. It is re ason able to conc lude th at a rea sona ble off icer w ould com preh end th e unla wfu lness o f basin g any hiring d ecision of a p ublic emp loyee on p arty affilia tion an d sup port w hen p arty affilia tion is n ot a requirement for t

he position. Id
. facts in rel ation to the qual ifi ed immunity i ssue. 2 The Distri ct Court’ s order was entered pri or to our opinion i n Forbes, and we do not faul t the Dis tri ct Court f or fai ling to comply with a rule that had not ye t been announced, but

in order to ensur e that

we do not exceed our j urisdi ction, we vacate the order of the Dist rict Court and remand f

or compliance with the Forbes rule. Upon complying with that r

ule, the Dist

rict Court shoul d enter a

new order granting or denyi ng the moti on. If

aggrieve d, the current

appell ants can take a new appeal at that t ime and raise any issu es th at are pro per ly w ithin our juris dicti on.