2010 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 7-19-2010 

# Ge r ald B u sh v

. P hi l a 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 . 10-1906

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

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 l l a nova 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 2010 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 nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Ge r ald B ush v

. P hi l a P o l D ept " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 937. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/9371

A L D - 233 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. 10- 1906

___________ GE RA L D B US H, A p p e llan t, v . PHI LAD ELPHI A PO LI CE D EPARTM ENT; PHI LAD ELPHI A PRI SON SYSTEM ; THE A TTOR NEY G E N E R A L O F T H E C O M M O N W E A L T H O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

____________________________________ 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 v. N o. 10- cv- 01104) D istri ct Ju d g e: C . D arn ell Jo n es, II

____________________________________ S u b m itt e d f

o r P o ss ib le S u m m a ryA c tio n P u rsu a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

J ul y1, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O A N D SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed : J ul y19, 2010 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antG er al d B us h fi l ed an i n for m a paupe r i s ci vi l com p lai nti n U ni t ed St at es2

D i s t r i c tCou r tf

o rt h e Ea s t e r n Di s t r i c to f Pe n n s y l v a n i a a g a i n s tt h e Ph i l a d e l p h i a Po l i ce D e p a rtm e n t, P h ilad e lp h ia P riso n S y ste m , a n d th e P e n n sy lv a n ia A tto rn e yG e n e ra l in connec t i on w i t h hi s convi ct i on i n 1986 forr obberyand r el at ed cr i m es , and hi s r es ul t i ng se n ten c e o f

2 0 y e a rs im p riso n m e n t. B u sh a lleg e d th a t th e P h ilad e lp h ia P o lice f ra u d u len tly c o n c e a le d e x c u lp a to rye v id e n c e f ro m th e p ro se c u to r, th e ju d g e , an d d e f e n se c o u n se l. A c c o rd in g to B u sh , the p o lice sh o w e d h is p h o to g ra p h to e y e w itn e ss D a rle n e R o b e rts a n d to ld her B us h w as t he per s on w ho r obbed her . H e furt heral l eged thathe had s uffe r ed “c ol l at er al co n seq u en ce s” fr om t he convi ct i on i n t hathe had l os thi s j ob and the r i ghtt o vot e, and he cannots erve on a j ur y . B us h cont ended that , b ec au se the pol i ce f r audul ent l yconce al ed evi dence, th e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons w as t ol l ed and r es j udi cat a di d notappl y . H e s ought $7 00 , 00 0, 00 0 in com pen sat oryand pu nit i ve d am ages. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed B us h l eave t o appea l i n for m a pauper i s and di s m i s s ed the c o m p lain t u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ). B u sh th e n su b m itt e d a n a m e n d e d c o m p lain t, i n w hi ch he not ed thathabea s corpus r el i ef w as not avai l abl e t o hi m beca us e he w as no l onger i n cus t ody ; a s ect i on 1983 compl ai ntw as hi s onl ychanc e forr el i ef, and he ha d fil ed for habea s r el i ef four t i m es w i t hout s ucce s s w hi l e he w as s t i l l i n cus t ody . I n an or der e n ter ed on M ar ch 22, 2010, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i ssed the am ended com pl ai nt“pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( B ) ( i i ), as b arred byt he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons and pr ecl uded undert he doctr i ne of re s ju d ica ta . ” In the m argi n, t he co urtset forth thr ee of B ush’s pr i or cases: B ush
v. C i t yof Phi l adel phi a, D . C . C i v. N o. 09- cv- 04798; B us h v. C i t yof Phi l adel phi a, D . C . C i v.T hi s s ame i nj unct i on w as ent er ed i n B us h v. C i t yof Phi l adel phi a, D . C . C i v. N o. 10- 1 cv- 00640. 3 N o . 0 4 -cv -05 7 7 6 ; and B u sh v . C ityo f P h il ad elph ia, D . C . C iv. N o . 1 0 -cv -00 6 4 0 . T h e c o u rt ’s or der concl uded w i t h t hi s i nj unct i on: “The C l erk of C our t i s di r ect ed not t o acc eptanyfur t her com plai nts , m oti on s, l et t ers , m em oranda , or anyother do cum ents t hat P l ai nti ff fi l es agai nst D e f e n d a n ts , e x c e p t f

o r a N o tic e o f A p p e a l, u n le s s h e s e c u re s p ri o r a p p ro v a l f ro m th e C o u rt .” 1 B ush ap peals . O ur C l erk adv i sed the part i es t hat w e m i gh t act sum m ari l y t o d i spose of thi s appea l , s ee Thi r d C i r . L A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6, and as ked for r es pons es . B us h has s ubm i t t ed fi ve s epar at e r es pons es , w hi ch w e have cons i der ed. W e w il l sum m aril yaf

firm the o rde r of

the D istri ct C o u rt to th e e x tent the c o u rt d ism iss e d B u s h ’s c iv il co m p lain t u n d e r th e in f o rm a p a u p e ris s tatu te, b e c a u se it cle a rly appea r s t hatno s ubs t ant i al ques t i on i s pr es ent ed byt hi s appea l . T hi r d C i r . L A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6. See al s o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) ( “N ot w i t hs t andi ng any fi l i ng fee , orany por t i on t her eof, t hatm ayhave been pai d, t he cour t s hal l di s m i s s t he cas e at anyt i m e i f the cour tdet erm i nes t hat – *** ( B ) t he ac t i on orappea l – *** ( i i ) fai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m on w hi ch
r el i ef maybe gr ant ed”) . B us h’ s ci vi l compl ai ntaddr es s ed hi s al l egedl yunfai rt r i al and re su lti n g in c a rc e ra tio n , th e c o n se q u e n c e s, h e c o n ten d s, o f a tain ted p h o to g ra p h ic i dent i fi cat i on. H e s oughtexpl i ci t l yt o br i ng hi s act i on under42 U . S. C . § 1983, all egi ng a m al ici o u s p r os ecut i on and an unc ons t i tut i onal convi ct i on and s ent ence . B utH eck v. H um phr ey , 512 U . S. 477 ( 1994) , hol ds t hata pr i s oner ’ s ci vi l r i ght s s ui tfordamages or4

equi t abl e r el i ef i s barr ed unl es s he can demonstr at e t hat hi s convi ct i on or s ent ence has been inv ali d ated . 5 1 2 U . S . at 48 6 -87 . B u sh ’s co n v ict ion h as n ev er b e e n in v ali d ated . H ec k ’s favor abl e t erm i nat i on rul e appl i es “no mat t ert he t ar get of the pr i s oner ’ s s ui t( s t at e conduc t lea d in g to c o n v ictio n o r in ter n a l p riso n p ro c e e d in g s) – if su c c e ss in th a t a c ti o n w o u ld nece s s ar i l y demonst r at e t he i nval i di t y of confi nement or i t s dur at i on. ” W i l ki ns on v. D ot s on, 5 4 4 U . S . 7 4 , 8 1 -82 (20 0 5 ). S ee a ls o E d w a rds v . B ali so k , 5 2 0 U . S . 6 4 1 , 6 4 6 -47 (19 9 7 ). Succes s i n t he i ns t ant act i on w oul d nece s s ar i l ydemonstr at e thatB us h’ s convi ct i on w as not val i d. A l t hough B us h i s no l onger i n cus t ody , beca us e he pr oper l ycoul d, and pr evi ous l ydi d, avai l hi m s el f of the habe as corpus r emedy , H ec k ap p l i es t o hi m even though he has s i nce b e e n re lea se d . S e e G ill e s v . D a v is, 4 2 7 F .3 d 1 9 7 , 2 0 9 - 1 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (H e c k a p p lies to h ab ea s eli g ible p lai n ti ff ). T o t he ext entB us h inten d ed to rai s e a c l ai m forfal s e arr es t , as expl ai ned byt he D i s t r i ctC our ti n a pr i oract i on, B us h v. C i t yof Phi l adel phi a, D . C . C i v. N o. 09- cv- 04798, t he cl ai m i s barr ed byt he tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons appl i cabl e t o t or t s i n Penns y l vani a, s ee 4 2 P a . C o n s. S tat. A n n . § 5 5 2 4 (2 ), ( 7 ); se e a lso W ilso n v . G a rc ia, 4 7 1 U .S . 2 6 1 (1 9 8 5 ) (s tate s t atut e of l i m i t at i on appl i es t o act i on s u n d er 42 U . S. C . § 1983) , i ns ofaras t he i ns t ant compl ai ntw as fi l ed on M ar ch 11, 2010, and B us h al l eged thathe di sco v ere d t he fa ctual pr e di c a t e fo rhi s c l a i m on N ov e mber28 , 20 03 , s e e Bus h v . Ci t yof Phi l a de l ph i a , 36 7 F. S u p p . 2 d 7 2 2 , 7 2 4 (E . D . P a. 20 0 5 ). W e w i l l vacate the o rdert o the ext ent i tbars B ush from fi l i ng any t hing fu rther against5

t hes e def endant s w i t houtl eave of court , and r emand. W e re v ie w t hatpar tof the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or derbarr i ng t he fi l i ng of “a ny fur t her compl ai nt s , m ot i ons , l et t er s , m emora nda, or anyot herdocument s t hatPl ai nt i ff f i l es agai ns tD efe ndant s ” for an abus e of di s cr et i on. See A bdul - A kbarv. W at s on, 901 F. 2d 329, 331 ( 3d C i r . 1990) . D i s t r i ctcour t s i n t hi s ci r cui tm ay i s s ue an i nj unct i on undert he A l l W r i t s A ct , 28 U . S. C . § 1651( a) , t o r equi r e l i t i gant s w ho h av e e n g ag ed in ab u sive , g rou n d less, an d v ex ati o u s li ti g ati o n to o b tai n ap p rov al of the c o u rt b e f o re f ilin g f u rt h e r c o m p la in ts . S e e C h ip p s v . U .S . D is tr ic t C o u rt f o r M id d le D is tr ic t o f

P a ., 882 F. 2d 72 ( 3d C i r . 1989) . T he i n for m a paupe r i s s t atut e, 28 U . S. C . § 1915, pr ovi des a t ool f o r c lea ri ng t he dock et of fr i vo l ou s cases, bu t “a fr i vo l ou s com plai nt i s on e t hing ; a c o n tin u in g a b u se o f

p ro c e ss is a n o th e r. In th e c a se o f th e latte r, [ 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 ] a lo n e is notan ef fi cac i ous r emedy . ” See A bdul - A kbar , 901 F. 2d at 333. A di s t r i ctcour ti s ent i t l ed t o r es or t t o i t s pow er s of i nj unct i on and cont empt t o pr ot ecti t s pr oces s w hen i ti s confr ont ed
w ith a p a ttern o f

c o n d u c t th a t is a b u siv e a n d w h e n it b e liev e s tha t th e a b u siv e c o n d u c t w ill c o n tin u e if

n o t r e s tr a in e d . Id . H e re , the D istr ic t C o u rt f o u n d a p a ttern o f

v e x a tio u s litig a tio n o n B u sh ’s p a rt w ith
r es pectt o hi s cl ai m of fal s e ar r es tand mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on, a fi ndi ng w hi ch i s s uppor t ed byt he r ecor d. I tappea r s t hat t hes e l aw s ui t s ar e l i kel y t o cont i nue abs ents om e r es t r i ct i on on B us h. C hi pps , 882 F. 2d at 73; s ee al s o I n r e O l i ver , 682 F. 2d 443, 444 ( 3d C i r . 1982) . T he D istri ct C o u rtd id no t, h o w ev er, af fo rd B u sh the no ti ce an d o p p o rtu n ity to r esp o n d that are
r equi r ed w hen i nj unct i ons of thi s t ype ar e ent er ed. See, e. g. , G agl i ar di v. M cW i l l i ams, 8346

F. 2d 81, 83 ( 3d C i r . 1987) . G ener al l y , t he bars houl d notbe i m pos ed bya courtw i t houtpr i or not i ce a nd s om e occ as i on t o r es pond. See i d. A n i nj unct i on barr i ng l i t i gat i on w i t houtl eave o f c o u rt is a n e x c e p tio n to th e g e n e ra l ru le o f f re e a c c e ss to th e c o u rts a n d its u se a g a in st a p ro s e p la in tif

f m u s t b e a p p ro a c h e d w ith c a u tio n . S e e In re O liv e r, 6 8 2 F .2 d a t 4 4 5 . M or eover , t o pr ot ecta l i t i gi ous par t y ’ s l egi t i m at e cl ai m s , w e h av e appr oved of a narr ow l yt ai l or ed or der“di r ect i ng t hatt he l i t i gantnotfi l e any s ect i on 1983 cl ai m s w i t hout l eave of courtand tha t in seeki ng l eave of court , t he l i t i gantcert i fy( 1) t hatt he cl ai m s he
w i s hes t o pr es entar e new cl ai m s neverbefor e r ai s ed and di s pos ed of o n t he mer i t s byany fede r al cour t s , ( 2) t hat he bel i eves t he fac t s al l eged i n hi s compl ai ntt o be true, and ( 3) t hat h e k n o w s o f

n o re a so n to b e liev e h is c la im s a r e f o re c lo se d b yc o n tro lli n g law .” A b d u lA k b a r, 9 0 1 F .2 d a t 3 3 3 . T h e in ju n c tio n e n ter e d a g a in st B u sh b yth e D istric t C o u rt is i ns uffi ci ent l ynarr ow i n t hatB us h appar ent l yw oul d be barr ed fr om fi l ing ev en b rand ne w cl ai m s agai ns tt he C i t yof Phi l adel phi a. U nl es s t h ere i s a “pa t t ern of vexa t i ous l i t i gat i on t ranscend[ing] a part i culardis pu t e, ” C hipps, 88 2 F . 2d at73 , t he D i stri ctC ou rtm ust “c o n side r li m it ing reli ef ‘t o the pre clus ion o f f u ture law su it s arisi n g o u t of the s am e m att ers t hatw er e t he s ubj ect of the [pr i or ] di s m i s s ed ac t i ons . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng G agl i ar di , 834 F. 2d at 83) . See al s o B r ow v. Far r el l y , 994 F. 2d 1027, 1038 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . O n r emand t he D i s t r i ct C our ts houl d gi ve B us h not i ce and an oppor tuni t y t o r es pond, and consi der t ai l or i ng t he or der t o p erm i tnew cl ai m s never befo re r ai sed and dis po sed of on t he m eri t s. W e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff

i r m t he or derof t he D i s t r i ct C ourt t o t he ext entt he compl ai nt7

and amended compl ai ntw er e di s m i s s ed under28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) ; and vac at e that par tof the or derenj oi ni ng B us h fr om fi l i ng an y thi ng fur t heragai ns tt he def endant s , and
r emand. B u s h’ s m ot i on r eques t i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our tC l erk t o forw ar d t he N ot es of T es t i m ony , et c. i s deni ed.