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 11-30-2009 

# S h a wn W right v . D rug Enforce me nt Age nc y 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 . 09-2125

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 " S h a wn W ri ght v . Dr u g E nfor c e me nt Ag e nc y " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 186. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/186AL D- 0 4 2 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. 09- 2125

___________ S H A W N W R IG H T , A ppel l ant

v. D R U G E N F O R C E M E N T A G E N C Y ; JO H N D O E , (S u p e rv iso r to D E A A g e n t C a lv in Ev a n s ) ; AG ENT C ALV I N EV AN S; SALEM CO UN TY PRO SECUTO RS OFFI CE; P ROS ECUT OR J OHN LE NEHAN; ASS T. P ROS ECUT OR J ASON W I TCHE R; OFFI CER RA LPH PAD I LLA; SP ECI AL O FF I CER ED M UN D SPI NELLI ; SALEM

CO UNT Y S UNB E AM NE WS P AP E R; P HI L I P S E AN C UR RA N

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- cv- 03725) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l d u e t o a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l De f e c to rP u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B ) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u 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 N ovember13, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember30, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM S h a w n W rig h t ap p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r g ra n tin g a p p e llee s’ m o tio n s to2

d ism iss. F o r th e re aso n s b elow , w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. T h e p ro c e d u ra l h isto ryo f th is c a se a n d th e d e tails o f W rig h t’s c laim s a re w e ll know n t o the part i es , s etfor th i n t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s thor ough opi ni on, and nee d notbe d i s c u s s e d a tl e n g th . Br i e f l y , Wr i g h ta s s e r t e d th a tth e Dru g E n f o r c e me n tAg e n c y( DE A) a n d Ag e n tE v a n s f

o r c e d h i m t o wo r k wi th th e S a l e m C o u n tyP r o s e c u t o r ’ s Of f i c e ( S CP O) e v e n a f ter h is id e n titya s a n in f o rm a n t w a s e x p o se d a n d a llo w e d th e S C P O to p ro se c u te h is d ru g su p p liers in v io latio n o f a n o ra l ag re e m e n t th a t th e yw o u ld b e p ro se c u ted in fede r al court . W r i ghtar gued thathe w as i dent i fi ed as an i nform anti n new s paperart i cl es and for ced t o cont i nue w or ki ng as an i nform anteven a ft eri tw as cl earthatthe inv esti g ati o n s w ere d an g ero u s. A p p ell ee s filed m o ti o n s to d ism iss, an d the D istri ct C o u rt app oint ed W ri gh tcou nsel . A ft er the D i stri ctC ou rtgrant ed the m oti on s t o d i sm i ss, W rig h t f iled a p ro se n o tice o f

a p p e a l. B eca us e appe l l ee Spi nel l i has di s m i s s ed hi s cr os s - cl ai m s , W r i ght ’ s not i ce of appea l has r i pened, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. C ape M ayG r eene , I nc v. W arr en, 698 F. 2d 179, 184- 85 ( 3d C i r . 1983) ( pr ematur e not i ce of appea l becomes eff ect i ve upon di s m i s s al of out s t andi ng cr os s - cl ai m s ) . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng appel l ees ’ m ot i ons t o di s m i s s . G al l o v. C i tyof P h ila d e lp h ia , 1 6 1 F .3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). W r i ghtdi d notgi ve anydet ai l s on the i nves t i gat i ons he w as i nvol ved i n orhow he w as pl ace d i n danger . H e does notexpl ai n how he w as “for ced” t o cont i nue w or ki ng asIn th e Ju ly2 0 0 4 a rticle , itis n o ted th a t ap p e llee S p in e lli re c e iv e d a n a w a rd f o r h is 1 pol i ce w or k, i ncl udi ng di s m ant l i ng W r i ght ’ s drug or gani zat i on. I n an O ct ober7, 2004, art i cl e, i tw as r eport ed thatW r i ght“had pr ovi ded i nform at i on t o author i t i es i m pl i cat i ng h is f o rm e r a s s o c ia te s .” 3 an i nform antaft erhi s i dent i tyw as expos ed. W e not e thatw hi l e r epr es ent ed bycouns el at hi s pl ea he ar i ng i n D ece m ber2004 and hi s s ent enci ng i n J anuary2006, he made no compl ai nt s of anys uch for ce. W r i ghtpr es um abl ycont i nued t o cooper at e i n the hopes of r ece i vi ng a s i zabl e dow nw ar d departur e. A nd he di d. A s a r es ul tof hi s cooper at i on, W rig h t w a s s e n ten c e d to six y e a rs in p riso n , fa r b e lo w th e g u id e lin e s s e n ten c e o f th irty y ear s t o l i fe. A s foranyagr eementt o pr os ecut e hi s drug s uppl i er s i n fede r al court , no ci t i zen h a s a ri g h t to in s is t o n th e in itia liz a tio n o f c ri m in a l p ro c e e d in g s . L in d a R .S . v . R o la n d D ., 410 U . S. 614, 619 ( 1973) . W r i ghtdoes notal l ege thathe w as hous ed i n the Sal em C ountyj ai l atthe s ame t i m e as the drug s uppl i er s ; he al l eged onl ythathe had “ s tr ong t i es a n d c o -d e f

e n d a n ts ” th e re . W ri g h t’ s claim s co n ce rnin g the J u ly2 0 0 4 an d O ctob er 2 0 0 4 n ew sp ap er a rt icl es a re u n tim e ly . W h ile W rig h t ar g u e d in th e D istric t C o u rt th a t h is c laim s w e re b ro u g h t w ith in

1 the s i x- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons forcontr actcl ai m s , he al s o ar gued thathe had estab li sh ed a c o n sti tuti o n al vio lat ion . C lai m s b rou g h t pu rsua n t t o 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 are s ubj ectt o t he s t at e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons forper s onal i nj uryact i ons . W i l s on v. G ar ci a, 471 U . S. 261, 266- 67 ( 1985) . W e have hel d thatN ew J er s ey ’ s tw o- y earl i m i t at i ons4

per i od on per s onal i nj uryact i ons , N . J . S. A . 2A : 14- 2, appl i es t o ci vi l r i ght s cl ai m s under § 1 9 8 3 . C ito v . B ri d g e w a te r T o w n s h ip P o lic e D e p ’t , 8 9 2 F .2 d 2 3 , 2 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). T hus , the compl ai nt , fi l ed i n A ugus t2007, w as unt i m el yw i th r es pectt o the J ul yand O c to b e r 2 0 0 4 a rt ic le s . In th e a rt icl e p u b li sh ed o n A u g u st 5, 20 0 5 , the a u tho r no ted th at th e d rug su p p li ers h a d b e e n in d ic te d a n d o n e h a d b e e n th e s u p p lie r f o r W ri g h t w h o w a s a w a itin g s e n te n c in g . T he SC PO w as named as the s our ce f orthe fa ctthatthe drug s uppl i er s w er e arr es t ed at the r es ts t op w her e theynor m al l ym etW r i ght . W hi l e the compl ai nti s t i m el yas t o the p u b lic a tio n o f

th e A u g u s t 5 , 2 0 0 5 a rt ic le , th e a lle g a tio n s a re n o t s u f f ic ie n t to s ta te a c la im . A s t at e- cr eat ed dange rcl ai m has fourel ement s . Fi r s t , W r i ghtm us ts how thatt he harm caus ed w as for es eea bl e and di r ect . N ext , appel l ees m us thave a ct ed w i th a degr ee o f c u l p a b i l i tyth a ts h o c k s th e c o n s c i e n c e . W r i g h tmu s th a v e b e e n a f o r e s e e a b l e v i c t i m, a n d , fin a lly , ap p e llee s m u st h a v e a f f irm a tiv e lyu se d th e ir a u th o rityto c re a te a d a n g e r to W ri g h t. W alt er v . P ike C o u n ty , P a., 5 4 4 F . 3 d 1 8 2 , 1 9 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). D es pi t e W r i ght ’ s al l egat i ons t o the contr ary , the A ugus t2005 art i cl e di d not expos e W r i ght ’ s l ocat i on orgi ve s peci fi c det ai l s conce rni ng hi s act i ons as a conf i dent i al i nform ant . T he authorof the art i cl e mer el yi dent i fi ed one of the men arr es t ed as the drug su p p lier f

o r W rig h t w h o w a s a w a iti n g se n ten c in g in f e d e ra l co u rt. W rig h t ap p e a rs to a r g u e th a tth e d ru g s u p p l i e r s d i d n o tk n o w h i s r e a l n a me ; th u s , th e p u b l i c a t i o n o f h i s n a me puthi m i n danger . W r i ghthas notal l eged a nyactual harm he has s uffe r ed fr om the5

di s cl os ur e of hi s i dent i ty . H e does notal l ege thathe has r ece i ved anythr eat s fr om the d ru g su p p liers . W rig h t h a s a lso n o t m a d e a n ysp e c if ic a lleg a tio n s s u p p o rtin g h is c o n te n tio n th a t a p p e lle e s a c te d w ith a d e g re e o f c u lp a b ility th a t s h o c k s th e c o n s c ie n c e . H e has al l eged nothi ng i ndi cat i ng thatthe di s cl os ur e of hi s name t o the pr es s w as any thing m ore than neg l i gen t . M oreove r, W ri gh tagreed to t est i fyattri al i f nee ded ; t hu s, th e p o te n tia l e x p o s u re o f h is id e n tity w a s a n tic ip a te d b yth e p le a a g re e m e n t. Sum m aryact i on i s appr opr i at e i f ther e i s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on pr es ent ed i n t he appea l . See Thi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4. Forthe above r eas ons , as w el l as thos e s etfor th by th e D istric t C o u rt, w e w ill su m m a rilya f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r. S e e T h ird C irc u it I.O .P . 1 0 .6 .