2009 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 8-26-2009 

# D a vid R i ve ra v . Julio Algarin 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 . 08-1360

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " D a vid R ive r a v . Jul io Al garin" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 779. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/779NOT 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. 08- 1360

___________ DAVI D R I VE RA , A ppel l ant

v. J U L I O M . A L G A R I N , W ar den; L A W SO N L A M E R , St at e D i s tr i ctA t t orney ’ s O ffi ce; ANGE L A M . S AM ONT E , Or a n g e Co u n tyS h e r i f f Of f i c e ; KAR E N G. RI CC A, M o n t g o me r yCou n tyDi s tr i c tAt t o rn e y ; NI NTH J UD I CI AL C I RCU I T CO UR T,

forO r l ando, Fl or i da; E D W A R D R E N D E L L , G overnor

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 2: 07- cv- 01116) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A ni t a B . B r ody

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t14, 2009 B efor e: M C K E E , H A R D I M A N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t26, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM D avid R i vera app eal s pro se fr om a D i stri ctC ou rtorder grant i ng D efen dan t s’ m ot i ons t o di s m i s s the compl ai ntforfai l ur e 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. See Fed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) . Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l aff i r m theI n Fl or i da i n 2002, R i ver a w as char ged w i th var i ous cr i m es . A ft erhe w as r el eas ed 1 o n b o n d , R iv e ra f

a iled to a p p e a r f

o r tria l. T he C our tof C om m on Pl eas hel d thatthe U C E A , 42 Pa. C . S. § 9121 ets eq. , r ather 2 than the I nt er s t at e A gr eementon D et ai ner s ( “I A D ”) , 42 Pa. C . S. § 9101 ets eq. , appl i ed, beca us e R i ver a w as noty ets ervi ng a s ent ence w hen Fl or i da i s s ued the det ai ner s . See 42 Pa. C . S. § 9140 ( “I f a c r i m i nal pr os ecut i on has been i ns t i tut ed aga i ns ts uch per s on under th e law s o f

th is C o m m o n w e a lth a n d is s til l p e n d in g , the G o v e rn o r . . . [ m a y ] h o ld h im u n til h e h a s b e e n tried a n d d isc h a rg e d o r c o n v icte d a n d p u n ish e d in th is C o m m o n w ea lth . ”). R i ver a appe al ed, ar gui ng thatthe C our tof C om m on Pl eas s houl d have di s m i s s ed the 3 F lori d a c h arg es b ec au se F lori d a v iolated h is r igh t t o a sp ee d ytr ial . T h e S u p erior C o u rt hel d thati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o di s m i s s cr i m i nal char ges fi l ed i n Fl or i da. 

### 2 D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. I . B ackgr ound I n J une 2003, R i ver a w as arr es t ed i n N or thum ber l and C ounty , Penns y l vani a and i ncar cer at ed i n countypr i s on on theftand r el at ed cha r ges . T he dayaft erhi s arr es t , the S tate o f F lo rid a iss u e d d e tain e rs r e q u e stin g R iv e ra ’s r e tu rn to F lo rid a in c o n n e c tio n w ith cr i m i nal char ges pendi ng ther e. R i ver a pl eade d gui l tyt o the Penns y l vani a cha r ges . Pr i or 1 t o hi s Penns y l vani a s ent enci ng, i n M ar ch 2004, R i ver a fi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habe as c o rp u s in P e n n s y lv a n ia s ta te c o u rt , s e e k in g d is m is s a l o f th e F lo ri d a d e ta in e rs . T he N or thum ber l and C ountyC our tof C om m on Pl eas hel d thatR i ver a had not been br oughtbefor e the courton the Fl or i da det ai ner s i n a t i m el ym annerpur s uantt o the thirty -da yreq u ir em en t of P en n sy lvan ia’s U n ifo rm C ri m inal E x tr ad it ion A ct (“U C E A ”), 42 Pa. C . S. § 9136. T he s t at e courtther efor e gr ant ed R i ver a’ s habea s corpus pet i t i on and 2 d ism iss e d th e F lo rid a d e tain e rs. A t th a t ti m e , R iv e ra w a s in c a rc e ra ted in P e n n sy lv a n ia 3R i ver a moved i n Fl or i da s t at e courtforcons i der at i on nol l e pr os equi , cl ai m i ng that 4 th e F lo rid a c rim in a l ch a rg e s s h o u ld h a v e b e e n d ism iss e d b e c a u se F lo rid a v io late d h is r i ghtt o a s peedytr i al . T he Fl or i da courtdeni ed the mot i on, hol di ng thatR i ver a w as not ent i t l ed t o the bene fi tof the s peedytr i al rul e unt i l he ei therr eturned t o Fl or i da or r eques t ed di s pos i t i on of the cha r ges i n compl i ance w i th the I A D . R i ver a al s o s ought m and am us rel i ef, w hich the F l ori da co urtden i ed fo r es sent i al l ythe sam e reas on s. R i ver a w as hel d underthe U C E A beca us e he w as no l ongers ervi ng a s ent ence on 5 J une 5, 2006. A l though the D i s tr i ctC our tr efe r s t o the comm i tm entor der ’ s dat e as J une 2, 2006, 6 this ap p ea rs t o b e a n erro r. 

### 3 s t at e pr i s on atG r at er for d, s ervi ng the s ent ence on hi s Penns y l vani a convi ct i on. I n M ay2005, w hi l e R i ver a w as s t i l l i m pr i s oned i n Penns y l vani a, Fl or i da i s s ued new det ai ner s underthe I A D . R i ver a w as s chedul ed t o compl et e hi s s ent ence and be 4 r el eas ed fr om SC I - G r at er for d on J une 4, 2006, buthe w as notr el eas ed. I ns t ead, he appea r ed bef

or e the M ont gom eryC ountyC our tof C om m on Pl eas on J une 5, 2006, w hi ch i s s ued a c om m i t m entor deragai ns thi m underthe U C E A , 42 Pa. C . S. § 9134, forfl eei ng 5 the cha r ges pendi ng i n Fl or i da. T he C our tof C om m on Pl eas r emanded R i ver a t o the 6 M ont gom eryC ountypr i s on. A tthe end of

the U C E A ’ s thi r ty - dayconfi nementper i od, s ee 42 Pa. C . S. § 9136, the C om m onw eal th s oughtand w as gr ant ed ex pa r t e perm i s s i on t o confi ne R i ver a foran addi t i onal s i xtyday s , t o aw ai tR i ver a’ s extr adi t i on paper s fr om Fl or i da. R i ver a fi l ed an o ther state co u rtp eti ti o n fo r a w ri t of h ab ea s co rpu s. T h e M o n tgo m eryC o u n tyC o u rt o f C o m m o n P leas g ran ted th e p eti ti o n o n A u g u st 11 , 2 0 0 6 , h o lding that R ivera ’s confi nements houl d nothave be en ext ended w i thoutaff or di ng R i ver a a he ar i ng. T he

### 4

courtagai n di s m i s s ed the Fl or i da det ai ner s . I n the i nt er i m , on J ul y31, 2006, G overnor R endel l s i gned a G overnor ’ s W arr antforR i ver a’ s det ent i on bas ed on an e xtr adi t i on re q u e s t s e n t b yF lo ri d a ’s g o v e rn o r. O n A ugus t15, 2006, R i ver a’ s r el eas e pape rw or k w as compl et ed, buthe w as not perm i t t ed t o l eave the M ont gom eryC ountypr i s on. B as ed upon i nform at i on pr ovi ded by A D A R i cca conce r ni ng the pendi ng Fl or i da cha r ges and the G overnor ’ s W arr ant , pol i ce is s u e d a c ri m in a l c o m p la in t c h a rg in g R iv e ra w ith b e in g a f u g itiv e f ro m ju s tic e in F lo ri d a . O n th a t b a s is , R iv e ra c o n tin u e d to b e d e ta in e d . R ivera fil ed y et an o ther state co u rtp eti ti o n fo r a w ri t of h ab ea s co rpu s. R ivera ’s couns el ar gued thatthe det ent i on aft erthe A ugus t11, 2006, gr antof habe as r el i ef w as i l l egal , and thatthe C om m onw eal th s houl d have di s char ged R i ver a fr om cus t odyand obt ai ned a ne w G overnor ’ s W arr ant . O n Sept ember18, 2006, the C our tof C om m on Pl eas gr ant ed R i ver a’ s pet i t i on and di s m i s s ed and va cat ed the G overnor ’ s W arr ant w i thoutpr ej udi ce. A m ong ot herthi ngs , the courti ndi cat ed that , underC om m onw eal th ex r el . C offman v. A yt ch, 361 A . 2d 652, 654 ( Pa. Super . C t . 1976) , R i ver a s houl d have be en re le a s e d a n d im m e d ia te ly re a rr e s te d , ra th e r t h a n h e ld c o n tin u o u s ly. Pur s uantt o t he Sept ember18, 2006, gr antof habe as corpus r el i ef, R i ver a w as di s char ged fr om the M ont gom eryC ountypr i s on on Sept ember20, 2006. H e w as im m e d iate lyre -a rre ste d in a n e a rb yp riso n p a rk in g lo t o n a n e w c rim in a l co m p lain t, ag a in char gi ng hi m as a fugi t i ve fr om j us t i ce i n Fl or i da. O n O ct ober12, 2006, w i thi n the

### 5

perm i s s i bl e thi r ty - daydet ent i on per i od underthe U C E A , G overnorR endel l i s s ued a ne w G o v e rn o r’ s W a rr a n t. R i ver a fi l ed anothers t at e courtpet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus . T hi s t i m e, t he M o n tgo m eryC o u n tyC o u rto f C o m m o n P leas d en ied th e w ri t and o rde red R ivera ’s extr adi t i on t o Fl or i da. R i ver a i s now s ervi ng a s ent ence i n Fl or i da. R i ver a then fi l ed a c i vi l act i on pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. T he D i s tr i ctC our tappoi nt ed R ivera co u n sel, an d thro u g h co u n sel, R ivera fil ed an am en d ed co m p lai n t. In it , R ivera al l eges thatJ ul i o A l gar i n ( w ar den of the M ont gom eryC ountypr i s on) , K ar en R i cca (A ss ista n t D istric t A tto rn e yf o r M o n tg o m e ryC o u n ty ), an d G o v e rn o r E d w a rd R e n d e ll vi ol at ed R i ver a’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s underthe Four th and Four t eenth A m endment s by det ai ni ng hi m aft erthe expi r at i on of hi s Penns y l vani a s ent ence on J une 4, 2006, and p u rs u a n t to th e G o v e rn o r’ s W a rr a n t is s u e d o n J u ly 3 1 , 2 0 0 6 . R i ver a does notdi s put e that , atal l r el evantt i m es , cr i m i nal char ges w er e pendi ng agai ns thi m i n Fl or i da and he w as a fugi t i ve fr om j us t i ce ther e. R i ver a al s o does not di s put e hi s Sept ember20, 2006, arr es tand s ubs equentdet ent i on pur s uantt o the s econd G o v ern o r’s W arran t, w h ich u lt im atelyled to h is ex tr ad it ion to F lori d a. R athe r, R ivera ’s amended compl ai ntcl ai m s thatauthor i t i es fai l ed t o adher e t o pr operpr ocedur es atvar i ous t i m es fr om J une 5, 2006 ( the dayaft erhe compl et ed hi s Penns y l vani a s ent ence ) , thr ough Sept ember19, 2006, r ender i ng hi s det ent i on uncons t i tut i onal fors om e oral l of that“[T] he abs tr actval ue of a cons t i tut i onal r i ghtm aynotform the bas i s for§ 1983 7 d a m a g e s .” M e m p h is C o m m u n ity S c h . D is t. v . S ta c h u ra , 4 7 7 U .S . 2 9 9 , 3 0 8 (1 9 8 6 ). R athe r, “su b stan ti al da m ag es m ayo n lyb e a w ard ed to co m p en sate f o r ac tual injury s uffe r ed as a r es ul tof the vi ol at i on of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” A l l ah v. A l - H afe ez, 226 F. 3d 247, 250 ( 3d C i r . 2000) , ci t i ng St achur a, 477 U . S. at308. A l though w e nee d not re a c h th e iss u e , w e e x p re ss se rio u s d o u b t as to w h e th e r R iv e ra p led a n ye n tit lem e n t to com pen sat orydam ages. P u n iti v e d a m a g e s a re a v a ilab le u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 “ w h e n th e d e f e n d a n t’s c o n d u c t is 8 s how n t o be mot i vat ed byevi l m ot i ve ori nt ent , orw hen i ti nvol ves r eckl es s orcal l ous i ndi ffe r ence t o t he fe der al l ypr ot ect ed r i ght s of other s . ” Sm i th v. W ade, 461 U . S. 30, 56, ( 1983) . R i ver a’ s amended compl ai ntr ai s ed no al l egat i ons t o s uppor ta puni t i ve damages aw ar d. 

### 6 appr oxi m at el ythr ee- m onth per i od. H e s eeks compensa t ory and puni t i ve damages , as 7 8 w e ll a s in

ju n c tiv e re lie f. O n J anuary10, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed R i ver a’ s § 1983 compl ai ntfor fai l ur e 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. I texpl ai ned thatR i ver a w as lega ll yd etaine d af

ter Jun e 4 , 2 0 0 6 , p u rsua n t t o a c o m m itm en t ord er. T h e D istri ct C o u rt fur therexpl ai ned thatR i ver a’ s det ent i on pur s uantt o the fi r s tG overnor ’ s W arr antw as l i kew i s e l egal , beca us e the w arr antw as val i dl yi s s ued. R iv e ra f ile d a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. II. A n a ly sis W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) . See Tal i afe rr o v. D arby T w p . Z o n ing B d . , 4 5 8 F . 3 d 1 8 1 , 1 8 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). “[ W ]he n ruli n g o n a d ef en d an t’ s m o tio n to d ism iss , a ju d g e m u st a c c e p t as tru e a ll o f th e f a c tu a l alle g a tio n s c o n tain e d in

### 7

th e c o m p lain t.” E ric k so n v . P a rd u s, 1 2 7 S .C t. 21 9 7 , 2 2 0 0 (2 0 0 7 ), citin g B e ll A tlan tic C orp. v. T w om bly , 55 0 U . S . 54 4, 55 6 (200 7). T o survi ve d i sm i ssal , a com plai nt m ust c o n tain su f

f icie n t f a c tu a l m a tter, a c c e p ted a s tru e , to “ sta te a c laim to re lief th a t is p l a u s i b l e o n i t s f

a c e . ” A s h c r o f

tv . I q b a l , 1 2 9 S . C t . 1 9 3 7 , 1 9 4 9 ( 2 0 0 9 ) , c i t i n g T w o m b l y, 550 U . S. at570. I n deci di ng a mot i on t o di s m i s s , w e maycons i derthe al l egat i ons of the c o m p lain t, ex h ib its a ttac h e d th e re to , an d m a tters o f p u b lic re c o rd . S e e P e n sio n B e n e f it G u ar. C o rp. v. W h it e C o n so l. Ind u s. Inc . , 9 9 8 F . 2 d 1 1 9 2 , 1 1 9 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). A . C laim s A g a in st G o v e rn o r R e n d e ll R i ver a cont ends thatG overnorR endel l vi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s w hen R ivera w as d etaine d o n Ju ly3 1 , 2 0 0 6 , p u rsua n t t o the f ir st G o v ern o r’s W arran t. R ivera c laim s th a t G o v e rn o r R e n d e ll i ss u e d th e w a rra n t “w ith th e k n o w led g e th a t ith a d n o b a sis in la w o r f

a c t.” A m e n d e d C o m p la in t ¶ 5 2 . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt p ro p e rl yd is m is s e d R iv e ra ’s c la im s a g a in s t G o v e rn o r R e n d e ll. A s the D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yobs erved, ther e i s no di s put e thatFl or i da’ s extr adi t i on d e ma n d wa s f

a c i a l l yv a l i d . S e e 4 2 P a . C. S . § 9 1 2 4 . P u r s u a n tt o P e n n s y l v a n i a l a w, G overnorR endel l w as r equi r ed t o acc eptthatfac i al l yval i d extr adi t i on r eques tand i s s ue a G overnor ’ s W arr ant . See 42 Pa. C . S. §§ 9123, 9128; s ee a l s o Puer t o R i co v. B r ans t ad, 4 8 3 U . S . 2 1 9 , 2 2 7 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ( “ [ T ] h e c o m m a n d s o f th e E x tr a d i t i o n C l a u s e a r e m a n d a t o ry, a n d a f f o rd n o d is c re tio n to th e e x e c u tiv e o f f ic e rs o r c o u rt s o f

th e a s y lu m S ta te .” ). A “governor ’ s r ol e i n eval uat i ng extr adi t i on r eques t s and i s s ui ng arr es tw arr ant s cons equent

### 8

to th e m is ju d icia l in n a tu re a n d th e re f o re e n tit led to a b so lu te im m u n ityf ro m su it. ” W h ite v. A r m ontr out , 29 F. 3d 357, 360 ( 8th C i r . 1994) ; s ee a l s o, e. g. , O ver al l v. U ni v. of P e n n a ., 4 1 2 F .3 d 4 9 2 , 4 9 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (d isc u ss in g th e m e a n in g o f “ q u a si-ju d icia l” pr ocee di ngs , and pr ovi di ng as one exa m pl e “the governorof a St at e of the U ni t ed St at es engage d i n an extr adi t i on hear i ng”) ; M i l l erv. D avi s , 521 F. 3d 1142, 1147 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( governorent i t l ed t o abs ol ut e i m m uni tyw hen ac t i ng i n a quas i - j udi ci al r ol e) ; D ababna h v . K e ller- B u rn sid e , 2 0 8 F .3 d 4 6 7 , 4 7 1 -7 2 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (e x tra d iti o n is in tim a tely asso ciated w ith jud ici al ph ase o f c ri m inal p roc ess). B . C l ai m s A gai ns tD efe ndantR i cca Pr os ecut or s ar e gene r al l yi m m une fr om l i abi l i tyfordamages i n act i ons br ought pur s uantt o § 1983. See I m bl erv. Pachtm an, 424 U . S. 409, 430 ( 1976) . A l though p rose cu tori al i m m u n ityis no t un li m it ed in sc o p e, i t cl ea rl yap p li es w h en p rose cu tors are act i ng i n the r ol e of a dvocat es on behal f of the s t at e. See i d. ; s ee a l s o O dd v. M al one, 538 F .3 d 2 0 2 , 2 0 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). B ased up on ou r r eview of the am end ed co m plai nt, R i vera’ s al l egati on s agai nst D e f e n d a n t R icc a a re lim ited to a c tio n s c o n c e rn in g th e in iti a tio n (a n d , af ter th e sta te court ’ s gr antof habe as corpus r el i ef, r e- i ni t i at i on) of extr adi t i on pr ocee di ngs conce rni ng th e c h a rg e s p e n d in g a g a in s t R iv e ra in F lo ri d a . S e e A m e n d e d C o m p la in t ¶ ¶ 2 0 , 3 3 . R icc a ’s e f

f o rts to in iti a te e x tra d iti o n p ro c e e d in g s a g a in st R iv e ra a re p ro se c u to ria l in natur e and e nt i t l e hert o i m m uni tyfr om l i abi l i ty . See R os s v. M eaga n, 638 F. 2d 646,

### 9

648- 49 ( 3d C i r . 1981) , overrul ed on othergr ounds byN ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U . S. 319, 3 2 8 (1 9 8 9 ); W a its v . M c G o w a n , 5 1 6 F .2 d 2 0 3 , 2 0 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 7 5 ); s e e a ls o , e .g ., D a b a b n a h , 2 0 8 F .3 d a t 4 7 1 -7 2 . I n addi t i on t o m onet arydamages , R i ver a s eeks i nj unct i ve r el i ef a gai ns tD efe ndant R i cca , r eques t i ng that“al l futur e det ent i ons . . . be done l aw ful l yand i n a manner cons i s t entw i th t he pr es ervat i on of M r . R i ver a’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . ” See A m ended C o m p lain t ¶¶ 5 0 (c ), 5 9 (c ). T o th e e x ten t R iv e ra ’s c laim f o r in ju n c tiv e re lief

a ttem p ts to obt ai n an i m m edi at e ora s peedi err el eas e fr om i ncar cer at i on, i ti s barr ed byPr ei s erv. R o d ri g u e z , 4 1 1 U .S . 4 7 5 , 4 7 6 -7 7 (1 9 7 3 ). I n a d d itio n , th e c la im is m o o t. I n g e n e ra l, a cl ai m becomes m oot“w hen the i s s ues pr es ent ed ar e no l onger‘ l i ve’ orthe part i es l ack a le g a lly c o g n iz a b le in te re s t in th e o u tc o m e .” M u rp h yv . H u n t, 4 5 5 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (1 9 8 2 ). B ec au se th ere is no d ispu te th at R ivera ’s ex tr ad it ion p roc ee d ing s are co n clud ed , R ivera no l ongerhas a cogni zabl e i nt er es ti n avoi di ng uncons t i tut i onal det ent i ons w hi l e aw ai t i ng extr adi t i on t o Fl or i da. A nyunr el at ed futur e pr os ecut i ons ordet ent i ons thatR i ver a mi ght fac e ar e fa rt oo s pecul at i ve t o w arr antan aw ar d of i nj unct i ve r el i ef. C . C laim s A g a in st D e f e n d a n t A lg a rin R i ver a al l eges thatD efe ndantA l gar i n uncons t i tut i onal l ydet ai ned hi m aft erJ une 4, 2 0 0 6 . T h rou g h Ju n e 4 , 2 0 0 6 , R ivera h ad b ee n serv ing a P en n sy lvan ia sen tenc e a t SC IG raterfo rd. O n Ju n e 5 , 2 0 0 6 , R ivera w as o rde red to ap p ea r be fo re the M o n tgo m ery C o u n tyC o u rt o f

C o m m o n P lea s, w h ich o rd e re d h im re m a n d e d to M o n tg o m e ryC o u n tyW e addr es s onl yR i ver a’ s damages cl ai m s . R i ver a has no vi abl e cl ai m fori nj unct i ve 9 r el i ef a gai ns tD efe ndantA l gar i n, forthe s ame r eas ons he has no vi abl e cl ai m for i nj unct i ve r el i ef a gai ns tD efe ndantR i cca . See s upr a. T he C our tof C om m on Pl eas s truggl ed w i th Penns y l vani a ca s e l aw hol di ng thatan 10 i ndi vi dual cannotbe “r e- arr es t ed” i f notfi r s tdi s char ged fr om cus t ody . See C offman, 361 A . 2d at654. Forpurpos es of R i ver a’ s § 1983 act i on, w e ques t i on w hetherthi s t echni cal re q u ir e m e n t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia p ro c e d u re ri s e s to th e le v e l o f a d u e p ro c e s s d e p ri v a tio n . S e e , e.g ., B a rto n v . N o rro d , 1 0 6 F .3 d 1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 5 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (“ [ F ]a ilu re to c o m p ly w ith e s ta b lis h e d p ro c e d u re s d o e s n o t d e p ri v e th e f u g itiv e o f

a n yp ro te c te d ri g h t.” ). M o re o v e r, th e re is n o d isp u te th a t th e C o m m o n w e a lth c o u ld h a v e c u re d th e a rg u a b le pr ocedur al fl aw byr el eas i ng and i m m edi at el yr e- arr es t i ng R i ver a. “[T] o es t abl i s h a § 1 9 8 3 c laim f

o r m o n e tar yre lief

, inc lu d in g a sh o w in g o f d a m a g e s, [ p lain tiff

] w ill h a v e to pr ove thathe s uffe r ed s om e depr i vat i on of l i bertygr eat erthan thatw hi ch he w oul d have s uffe r ed thr ough extr adi t i on i n ful l compl i ance w i th the U C E A . ” K now l i n v. T hom ps on, 2 0 7 F .3 d 9 0 7 , 9 0 9 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). T h u s, if R iv e ra sta ted a d u e p ro c e ss c laim a t all, it appea r s he w oul d be ent i t l ed t o no m or e than nomi nal damages . See Farr arv. H obby , 506 U . S . 1 0 3 , 1 1 2 (19 9 2 ); see also , e.g., H ard en v . P atak i, 3 2 0 F . 3 d 1 2 8 9 , 1 3 0 0 -01 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 

### 10 p riso n to a w a it ex tra d iti o n to F lo rid a . W h e n R iv e ra a rriv e d a t th e M o n tg o m e ryC o u n ty pr i s on on J une 5, 2006, A l gar i n coul d notperm i s s i bl yr el eas e hi m . A s w ar den of that f a c i l i ty , Al g a r i n wa s b o u n d t o a c tp u r s u a n tt o th e s t a t e c o u r t ’ s c o mm i t me n to r d e r . An “ac t i on t aken pur s uantt o a fa ci al l yval i d courtor derr ece i ves abs ol ut e i m m uni tyfr om § 1 9 8 3 law su it s fo r da m ag es.” H am il ton v . L ea v y , 3 2 2 F . 3 d 7 7 6 , 7 8 2 -83 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); 9 s ee a l s o L ockhartv. H oens t i ne, 411 F. 2d 455, 460 ( 3d C i r . 1969) . T hus , the D i s tr i ct C o u rt p ro p e rl yd is m is s e d R iv e ra ’s § 1 9 8 3 d a m a g e s c la im c o n c e rn in g th is d e te n tio n . R i ver a s ucce s s ful l ychal l enged thi s det ent i on i n a pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus , w hi ch the M ont gom eryC ountyC our tof C om m on Pl eas gr ant ed on A ugus t11, 2006. T hus , as of A ugus t11, 2006, the comm i t m entor derw as no l ongerfac i al l yval i d,

10W e su rm ise th a t th e c o m p letio n o f R iv e ra ’s r e lea se p a p e rw o rk w a s a n e f f o rt to 11 s a tis f yP e n n s y lv a n ia ’s p ro c e d u ra l r e q u ir e m e n ts u n d e r C o f f m a n , 3 6 1 A .2 d a t 6 5 4 . R iv e ra c h a llen g e d th is d e ten tio n v ia a n o th e r su c c e ss f u l sta te c o u rt p e tit io n f

o r a w rit 12 of habe as corpus . O nce he w as gr ant ed habe as corpus r el i ef, the G overnor ’ s W arr antno l ongerpr ovi ded a f

aci al l yval i d bas i s fordet ai ni ng R i ver a. A s a r es ul tof the gr antof habea s corpus r el i ef, R i ver a w as di s char ged fr om the M ont gom eryC ountypr i s on on Sept ember20, 2006. A l though he w as i m m edi at el yr e- arr es t ed i n a nea rbypr i s on parki ng l otand det ai ned on anothercr i m i nal compl ai ntchar gi ng hi m w i th bei ng a fugi t i ve fr om j us t i ce i n Fl or i da, R i ver a does notchal l enge the Sept ember20, 2006, det ent i on that u ltim a te ly le d to h is e x tr a d itio n to F lo ri d a . 

### 11 and di d notpr ovi de a f

ur therbas i s fordet ai ni ng R i ver a. Pr es um abl ypur s uantt o that o rd e r, R iv e ra ’s re le a s e p a p e rw o rk w a s c o m p le te d o n T u e s d a y , A u g u s t 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 . H ow ever , on J ul y31, 2006, pr i ort o the gr antof habe as corpus r el i ef, G overnor R endel l i s s ued a G overnor ’ s W arr antforR i ver a’ s det ent i on bas ed upon an e xtr adi t i on packa ge s entbyFl or i da’ s governor . T her efor e, the J ul y31, 2006, G overnor ’ s W arr ant p ro v id e d a n in d e p e n d e n t b a sis f o r c o n tin u in g to d e tain R iv e ra . R iv e ra c laim s th a t th is 11 d e ten tio n w a s u n c o n stitu tio n a l. O n c e a g a in , h o w e v e r, D e f e n d a n t A lg a rin is e n tit led to im m u n ityf

ro m R iv e ra ’s § 1 9 8 3 c laim . U n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s, it w a s re a so n a b le to det ai n R i ver a pur s uantt o t he fa ci al l yval i d G overnor ’ s W arr ant . See H ar l ow v. Fi t zger al d, 457 U . S. 800, 815- 16 ( 1982) ; B akerv. M cC ol l an, 443 U . S. 137, 142- 145 (19 7 9 ). 12 I I I . C oncl us i on Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on that R i v e r a ’ s a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n tf a i l s t o s t a t e a c l a i m u p o n w h i c h r e l i e f c a n b e g r a n t e d . We

### 12

w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r d ism iss in g th e c o m p lain t.