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 6-14-2005 

# C he rn a vsky v . H olmdel T wp P ol D ept 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 . 04-3621

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 " C he rn a vsk y v . H o lmde l T

wp P o l D ept " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1018. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1018NOT 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. 04- 3621 DANI E L L . CH E RN AVS KY, A ppel l ant v. TOW NSH I P OF HO LM DEL POLI CE D EPARTM ENT; B R U C E P H I L L I P S , i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y a n d i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y, T ow ns hi p of H ol m del , C hi ef of Pol i ce; R A Y M O N D W I L S O N , C a p t a i n , i n h i s o f f i c i a l a n d h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y; J A M E S S M Y T H E , C o rp o r a l , i n h i s o f f i c i a l a n d i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y; C A R O L W I L L I A M S , T o w n s h i p A d m i n i s t r a t o r , i n h e ro f f i c i a l a n d i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i ty; TOW NSH I P OF HO LM DEL O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 01- cv- 06207 (H o n o rab le S tanleyR . C h esler) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay24, 2005 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , A L IT O a n d R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed: J une 14, 2005) OPI NI ON O F THE COURTSm yt he w as cl ear ed of a nyw r ongdoi ng, and as not ed bel ow , C hernavs kyw as l at er 1 s us pended f

r om t he Pol i ce Benevol entA s s oci at i on foral l egedl yfi l i ng a fa l s e r epor ti n t he m att er. C hernavs kyw as i nves t i gat ed bythe M onm outh C ount yPr os ecut or ’ s O ffi ce f or 2 m i shand l i ng a do m est i c viol ence c om plai nt. A l t ho ug h thatoff i ce dec l i ned t o p res s cr i m i nal char ges , C hernavs kyw as l at erfound gui l t yof admi ni s t r at i ve vi ol at i ons and w as s u s p e n d e d f

o r1 5 d a ys w i t h o u tp a y. T h e D istric t C o u rt’s o p in io n d e taile d C h e rn a v sk y ’s s p e c if ic a lleg a tio n s, a lo n g w ith 3 th e tim e lin e o f

e v e n ts. A s w e w rite o n lyf o r th e p a rties , itis u n n e c e ss a ryto re c o u n t all t he det ai l s her e. 2 S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . D an iel C h ern av sk y , a re ti red p o li ce o ff icer, ap p ea ls th e e n tryo f su m m ary j u d g me n ta g a i n s th i m i n h i s s u i ta l l e g i n g r e t a l i a t i o n f o rp r o t e c t e d s p e e c h . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I . Backg r ound C hernavs kys erved as a pol i ce of fi cerw i t h t he Tow ns hi p of H ol m del fr om 1992 u n ti l he s u ff

ere d a h ea rtatt ac k in ea rl y2 0 0 1 . T h e c lai m s h ere stem fro m a re p o rt C hernavs kyfi l ed, al l egi ng t hatfel l ow offi cerand D efe ndantJ ames Sm yt he as s aul t ed K evi n M ar t i n, a s us pecti n cus t ody . C hernavs kycont ends thataft erhe r epor t ed the 1 i nci dentt o hi s s uper i or s , he w as r epea t edl yhar as s ed byhi s fel l ow offi cer s . A l l eged i nci dent s of har as s m enti ncl ude bei ng os t r aci zed i n t he depa r t m ent , havi ng hi s m ai l box and t i m e ca r ds s t ol en and va ndal i zed, bei ng as s i gned t o patr ol a l es s des i r abl e ar ea of t ow n, bei ng s i ngl ed outfordi s ci pl i naryact i on, bei ng s us pended f r om the Pol i ce 2 B enevol entA s s oci at i on, and havi ng hi s heal t h benef i t s t erm i nat ed i n t he y ear s fol l ow i ng hi s heartat t ack. C hernavs kycont ends thi s r et al i at i on and the fa i l ur e of Tow ns hi p and 33

po l i ce of fi ci al s t o ad dress t hese i ncident s vi olat ed 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 98 3, the F i rs t A m e n d m e n t, an d th e N e w Je rse yC o n sc ien tio u s E m p lo ym e n t P ro tec tio n A c t, N .J. S tat. A nn. § 34: 19- 1 et

s eq. , a n d c o n s t i tu t e d i n t e n t i o n a l i n f l i c t i o n o f e mo t i o n a l d i s t r e s s . He br oughtchar ges agai ns tC hi ef of Pol i ce Bruc e Phi l l i ps , C apt ai n R aym ond W i l s on, T ow ns hi p A dm i ni s t r at orC ar ol W i l l i ams, Sm yt he, the Tow ns hi p, and the Pol i ce D e p a rtm e n t. T h e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t to a ll D e f e n d a n ts, d ism iss in g w ith pr ej udi ce Cher navs ky ’ s § 1983 cl ai m s , and di s m i s s i ng w i t houtpr ej udi ce the r emai ni ng s t at e l aw cl ai m s . T he courthel d t her e w as no T ow ns hi p pol i cyorcus t om of r et al i at i ng agai ns toffi cer s w ho exer ci s ed thei rFi r s tA m endmentr i ght s and thatthe i ndi vi dual s upervi s or yD efe ndant s di d notacqui es ce i n anyuncons t i tut i onal act i ons . I n addi t i on, t he cour thel d t hateven i f the al l eged ha r as s m entoccurr ed, Sm yt he w as notact i ng undert he c o lo r o f la w . O n a p p e a l, C h e rn a v s k yd is p u te s e a c h o f th e s e c o n c lu s io n s . II . A n a ly sis A . J ur i s di ct i on and St andar d of R evi ew T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overC hernavs ky ’ s fede r al cl ai m s under28 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 a n d e x e rc ise d su p p lem e n tal ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 6 7 o v e r h is r el at ed s t at e cl ai m s . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. “W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n to g ran t sum m ary j udgm ent . ” Ma r to r a n a v . B d . o f T rs . o f S te a m fitte rs L o c a l U

n io n 4 2 0 He a lth , W

e lfa r e , &4

P ens i on Fund , 4 0 4 F .3 d 7 9 7 , 8 0 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te w h e re 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 e m o v in g p a rtyis e n tit led to a ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . B l ai rv. Scot tSpeci al t y G as es , 2 8 3 F . 3 d 5 9 5 , 6 0 3 (3d C ir . 2002) . T he bur den i s on t he non- m ovi ng par t yt o demonstr at e thatther e i s s uffi ci ent evi dence fora r eas onabl e j ur yt o fi nd i n i t s favorand thatther e i s a di s put e overfac t s t hat m ig h t a f f e c t th e o u tc o m e o f

th e s u it. G r om an v. Tow ns hi p of Manal apan , 47 F. 3d 628, 6 3 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). O n c e th e m o v in g p a rtyh a s p re se n ted e v id e n c e sh o w in g th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e is s u e o f

m a te ri a l f

a c t, “ 

### it s opp on ent m

ust do m ore than sim

ply showthat

there is som e m et aphy si ca l doubt as to the mat eria l fac ts .” Ma ts ushita Elec . I ndus. Co. v. Ze ni t h Radi o Cor

p. , 475 U.S. 57 4, 58 6 (19 86 ). B . E vi dence of a Tow ns hi p Pol i cyorC us t om of R et al i at i on

“ [ A ] lo c a l g o v e rn m e n t m a yn o t b e su e d u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 f o r a n in ju ryin f licte d so lely byi t s empl oy ees oragent s . I ns t ead, i ti s w hen exe cut i on of a gove r nm ent ’ s pol i cyor cu stom . . . inf

li cts th e inju rythat the g o v ern m en t as an en ti tyis r esp o n sible u n d er § 1983. ” Mon el lv. N

. Y . D ep’tof Soci al Servs . , 4 3 6 U .S . 6 5 8 , 6 9 4 (1 9 7 8 ); s ee al s o D oby v. D eC rescenzo , 171 F. 3d 858, 867 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . W e have hel d t hatpol i cyi s m ade byan offi ci al s t at ementof a “ deci s i onm akerpos s es s i ng fi nal author i t yt o es t abl i s h m uni ci pal p o licy ,” a n d c u sto m c a n b e sh o w n b yth e p re se n c e o f a c o u rse o f

c o n d u c t th a t “is so w e lls et t l ed and pe r m anentas vi r tual l yt o cons t i tut e l aw . ” B i el evi czv. D ubi non , 915 F. 2d 845, 850 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . I n addi t i on, ther e mustbe a di r ectcaus al5

lin k b e tw e e n a m u n ic ip a l p o lic yo r c u s to m a n d th e a lle g e d c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . See, e. g. , C ars w el lv. B or ough of H om es t ead , 3 8 1 F .3 d 2 3 5 , 2 4 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); B r ow n v. Mu h len b e rgT

o w n sh ip , 2 6 9 F .3 d 2 0 5 , 2 1 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). H ere , there is no ev iden ce o f a n yp o li cyo r cu stom o f re tal iat ion ag ains t of fice rs w ho, l i ke C hernavs ky , exer ci s e thei rFi r s tA m endmentr i ght s . C hernavs kyar gues thatt he depart m ents houl d have mor e cl os el ym oni t or ed Sm yt he’ s act i ons gi ven the hi s t oryof a ss a u lt an d m isc o n d u c t alle g a tio n s a g a in st h im . Y e t S m yth e h a s n e v e r b e e n f o u n d g u ilty o f a n yo f th ese ch arg es. F u rth erm o re, suc h all eg ati o n s are irrelev an t – C h ern av sk y ’s com plai nt her e i s not that he w as ass ault ed b yS m yt he, bu tthat he w as r et al i at ed ag ai nst forr epor t i ng Sm yt he’ s al l eged a s s aul tof M art i n. E ven i f ther e w er e a c us t om of over l ooki ng abus e al l egat i ons , t hi s does notcons t i tut e a c us t om of r et al i at i on. A s s uch, th e re is n o t th e c a u s a l lin k re q u ir e d f o r r e ta lia tio n u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . C a rs w e ll , 381 F. 3d at 2 4 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). C. Cl a i ms Ag a i n s tS u p e r v i s o r yDe f e n d a n t s P h i l l i p s , W i l s o n , a n d W i l l i a ms T o est abli sh l i abil i t y , “[t ]he necessaryi nv olvem ent can be sho w n in tw o w ay s, ei t her‘ t hr ough al l egat i ons of per s onal di r ect i on orof ac tual know l edge a nd a c q u ie s c e n c e ,’” o r t h ro u g h p ro o f o f d ir e c t v io la tio n b ya s u p e rv is o r. A ndr ew s v. C i t y of P h ila d e lp h ia , 895 F. 2d 1469, 1478 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( quot i ng R o d e v . D e lla rc ip re te , 845 F .2 d 1 1 9 5 , 1 2 0 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 8 ); s ee al s o R obi ns on v. C i t

y of P i t t s bur gh , 120 F. 3d 1286, 1294 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . I n addi t i on, a pl ai nt i ff musts how that“an of fi ci al w ho has theA l t hough Sm yt he does notr emem bera meet i ng t aki ng pl ace , the pape rtr ai l of the 4 comm uni cat i on betw een Phi l l i ps and C hernavs ky ’ s at t orneypr ovi des s uppor ti n t he recor d fo r Phil l i ps’ att em pt t o look int o the al l egati on s. C hernavs kyar gued thatW i l l i ams’ r efus al t o r ei ns t at e hi s heal t h benef i t s cons t i tut ed 5 r et al i at i on. H ow ever , notonl yw as W i l l i ams ac t i ng i n herr ol e as an adj udi cat orfors uch di s put es , butherdeci s i on w as bas ed on a w el l - founded be l i ef thatC hernavs kyw as not ent i t l ed t o cont i nue t o r ece i ve thes e bene fi t s w hi l e on unpai d l eave and af t erhe had f

i l ed fora di s abi l i t yr et i r ementpens i on. 6 pow ert o m ake pol i cyi s r es pons i bl e forei t herthe af fi r m at i ve pr ocl amat i on of a pol i cyor acqui es cenc e i n a w el l - s et t l ed cus t om . ” B i el evi cz , 9 1 5 F . 2 d at 85 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). C hernavs kyhas fai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hatPhi l l i ps , W i l s on, orW i l l i ams w er e i nvol ved oracqui es ced i n anyunl aw ful conduct . Phi l l i ps t es t i fi ed he metw i t h Sm yt he af t erthe onl yt i m e C hernavs kydi r ect l ycompl ai ned t o Phi l l i ps . W hen Phi l l i ps w as l at ercont act ed i n w r i t i ng byC hernavs ky ’ s at t or ney , Phi l l i ps r eques t ed more i nform at i on aboutthe al l egat i ons , a r eques tw i t h w hi ch nei t herC hernavs kynorhi s at t orneycompl i ed. 4 Si m i l ar l y , W i l s on t ook s uffi ci entact i on t o addr es s the l i t t l e i nform at i on he had r egar di ng anyconfr ont at i on betw een the off i cer s . A nd C hernavs kypr oduced no e vi dence t o s how t hatW i l l i ams w as even a w ar e of Cher navs ky ’ s r epor tagai ns tSm yt he, l etal one of a ny sp e c if ic a lleg a tio n s o f

h a ra ss m e n t. E v e n if

th e se D e f

e n d a n ts d e c lin e d to lau n c h a f u ll 5 in v e stig a tio n , this d o e s n o t rise to th e lev e l o f a c q u ies c e n c e in u n c o n stitu tio n a l co n d u c t, given t he d earth o f i nfo rm at i on provided to them byC hernav sky . T he m ere aw areness t hatSm yt he and Cher navs kydi d notgetal ong does notamount t o del i ber at e ac t i on or k n o w le d g e o f

re ta lia tio n s u f

f ic ie n t to c o n s titu te a c q u ie s c e n c e . S e e , e.g ., P e m b a u r v . C ity7

o f C in c in n a ti , 475 U . S. 469, 481- 83 ( 1986) ( hol di ng thata pl ai nt i ff i n a § 1983 ac t i on m u st s h o w a d e lib e ra te c h o ice to f o llo w a n u n c o n stitu tio n a l co u rse o f a c tio n ); A m br os e v. Tow ns hi p of R obi ns on , 3 0 3 F .3 d 4 8 8 , 4 9 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). D . C l ai m s A gai ns tD efe ndantSm ythe In o rd e r t o s u c c e e d o n a § 1 9 8 3 c la im a g a in s t a n o n -s u p e rv is o ry e m p lo y e e , a pl ai nt i ff musts how t hatt he al l eged of fende ract ed underthe col orof l aw . “[T] he es s ence of s ect i on 1983’ s col orof l aw r equi r ementi s thatthe al l eged of fende r , i n comm i t t i ng t he actcompl ai ned of, abus ed a pow erorpos i t i on gr ant ed bythe s t at e. ” B onenber gerv. P l ym outh Tw

p. , 1 3 2 F .3 d 2 0 , 2 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); see al so Mark v. B orou gh of H atboro , 51 F. 3d 1137, 1150 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( “[A ] n otherw i s e pr i vat e t or ti s notcomm i t t ed undercol or of l aw s i m pl ybeca us e the t or t fea s ori s an empl oy ee of the s t at e. ”) . D ur i ng the t i m e of the a lle g e d h a ra s s m e n t, S m yth e d id n o t h a v e s u p e rv is o ry a u th o ri ty o v e r C h e rn a v s k y . A l t hough Sm yt he pos s es s ed the t i t l e of Corpor al , i ti s undi s put ed thatthi s i s a t i t l e of s eni or i t y , notof s upervi s or yr ank. W hi l e thi s s eni or i t yal l ow ed Sm yt he t o as s i gn C hernavs kyt o a part i cul arpatr ol ar ea on a tl eas tone occ as i on, C hernavs kyhi m s el f had per form ed thi s as s i gnm entdut yw hen he w as the s eni oroffi ceron a s hi ft . I n addi t i on, Sm yt he t es t i fi ed he di d noteven l earn of C hernavs ky ’ s r epor tagai ns thi m unt i l aft erhe had l eftt he Patr ol D i vi s i on. C hernavs kyadmi t t ed he ha d no fi r s t hand know l edge that Sm yt he knew of the r epor tw hen he a s s i gned C hernavs kyt o patr ol the “l es s des i r abl e” s out hern ar ea of

t ow n. B uteven i f w e as s um e thatC hernavs kycan s how Sm yt he w as8

aw ar e of the r epor t , s uch l i m i t ed ac t i on i s har dl y“s uffi ci entt o det era r eas onabl e per s on of or di naryfi r m nes s fr om exer ci s i ng hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s . ” A l l ah v. Sei ver l i ng , 2 2 9 F .3 d 2 2 0 , 2 2 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e re lativ e lyb e n ig n n a tu re o f th is ac ti o n b ec o m es e v en m o re a p p are n t up o n C h ern av sk y ’s ow n test im o n ythat o ff icers w ere r egul ar l yas s i gned t o patr ol t he s outhern s ect oral one, and thatthe onl yr eas on he c o n s i d e r e d i tl e s s d e s i r a b l e i s b e c a u s e i ti s m o r e ru r a l a n d th e r e f o r e l e s s b u s y. E ven i f w e as s um e Sm yt he part i ci pat ed i n t he otherr et al i at i on al l eged by C h e rn a v sk y , su c h a c tio n s d o n o t co n stitu te a n a b u se o f p o w e r g ra n ted b yth e sta te. T h is i ncl udes Sm yt he’ s br i ngi ng char ges agai ns tC hernavs kyw i t h t he Pol i ce Benevol ent A ssoci at i on , w hich subsequ entl ysuspend ed C hernav skyfor 15 m on t hs for fi l i ng a fal se r epor ti n t he M ar t i n i nci dent . A l t hough i tw as Sm yt he’ s pos i t i on as a pol i ce of fi certhat e a rn e d h im m e m b e rsh ip in th e P B A , this h a rd lym e a n s h is a c tio n s a s a m e m b e r o f th is u n ion w ere in h is of

ficial cap ac ityas a p o li ce o ff icer. W e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt t hatC hernavs kyhas nots how n t hatSm yt he abus ed the pow erof hi s offi ce. E. P l a i n t i f

f ’ s S t a t e La w Cl a i ms I ti s w el l es t abl i s hed thati n an ac t i on w i t h bot h fede r al and s t at e cl ai m s , “i f the fede r al cl ai m s ar e di s m i s s ed bef or e tr i al , even though noti ns ubs t ant i al i n a j ur i s di ct i onal s ens e, t he s t at e cl ai m s s houl d be di s m i s s ed as w el l . ” U ni t ed Mi ne W

orker s of A m . v. G i bbs , 383 U . S. 715, 726 ( 1966) ( codi fi ed by28 U . S. C . § 1367( c) ( 3) ( 2004) ) . H avi ng9

pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed C hernavs ky ’ s § 1983 cl ai m w i t h pr ej udi ce, the D i s t r i ctC our tw as c o rr e c t to d is m is s w ith o u t p re ju d ic e th e re m a in in g s ta te la w c la im s . I I I . C oncl usi on F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.