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 7-20-2005 

# Ruth v . R ich ard 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 . 04-2892

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 " R uth v . R ich ar d " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 809. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/809DP S - 2 1 0 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 . 04- 2892

________________ A N T H O N Y R U T H , S R ., A ppel l ant v. HE AT HE R R I CH AR D; CO M M ONWE AL T H OF P E NNS YL VANI A; YO RK CO UN TY A DU LT PROBA TI ON DEPA RTM ENT;

J OHN S . KE NNE DY; W I LLI A M G RA FF

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 00760) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le T h o m a s I. V a n a sk ie

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed ForPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al U nder28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) orSum m aryA ct i on

U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

A pr i l 28, 2005 B efor e: R O T H , B A R R Y and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed J ul y20, 2005)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________2

P E R C UR I AM A nthonyR ut h, pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a di s m i s s i ng hi s 42 U . S. C . § 1983 compl ai ntas fr i vol ous p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 A( b ) ( 1 ) . W e wi l l s u mma r i l ya f f i r m. I n 2002, R ut h pl eade d gui l t yt o pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e mar i j uana a nd w as s ent ence d t o t w enty - t hr ee mont hs ’ r es t r i ct ed i nt erm edi at e puni s hm entunderthe s upervi s i on of pr obat i on offi cerD ave W ei gl e. A ft erfourm onths , defe ndantH eather R ic h a rd re p la c e d W e ig le a s R u th ’s p ro b a tio n o f f ic e r. R uth admi t t ed that , w hi l e he w as on pr obat i on, he thr i ce t es t ed pos i t i ve fori l l egal drugs , t w i ce s m oked mar i j uana a nd once t es t ed ata 0. 96 bl ood al cohol l evel . H e w as unabl e t o obt ai n empl oym entand i ncurr ed a ne w char ge of dr i vi ng w hi l e hi s l i cens e w as s us pended. R ut h al s o fai l ed t o appea rfors chedul ed appoi nt m ent s w i t h hi s pr obat i on offi cer . I n February2004, pur s uantt o R i char d’ s pet i t i on fori m pos i t i on of puni s hm ent f o r v io latin g p ro b a tio n a ryc o n d iti o n s, R u th w a s s e n ten c e d to e lev e n a n d o n e -h a lf to tw e n ty-th re e m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. I n A pr i l 2004, w hi l e he w as an i nm at e atthe Y or k C ount yPr i s on, R uth fi l ed the i ns t antcompl ai nt . H e cl ai m ed thatthe def endant s vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s r i ght s and Si xth A m endmentr i ght s and s ubj ect ed hi m t o doubl e j eopar dybyr evoki ng hi s pr obat i on a n d o r d e r i n g h i m t o s e r v e t i me wi t h o u tc o u n t i n g th e t i me h e h a d s p e n to n p r o b a t i o n . He c laim s th a t su c h a n a c tio n v io late d th e ter m s o f h is p lea a g re e m e n t. F o r re lief , R u th3

so u g h t i m m ed iat e re lease w ith a “ total disch arg e f rom co n v ict ion , ” c o m p en sato ry d a m a g e s f

o r b re a c h o f

th e p le a a g re e m e n t a n d p u n itiv e d a m a g e s . T h e D istric t C o u rt n o ted th a t, t o th e e x ten t R u th so u g h t re lea se , h e w a s re q u ire d to do s o bym eans of a ha beas pet i t i on. See 28 U . S. C . § 2254; Pr ei s erv. R odr i guez, 411 U . S . 4 7 5 , 5 0 0 (19 7 3 ). W ith resp ec t t o R u th’s claim s fo r da m ag es, th e D istri ct C o u rt concl uded thatt heyw er e l egal l yfr i vol ous beca us e, pur s uantt o H eck v. H um phr ey , 512 U . S. 477 ( 1994) , unt i l R ut h has had hi s convi ct i on i nval i dat ed, no ci vi l act i on l i es for damages . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfur t herconcl uded that , w i t h r es pectt o J udge K ennedyand D i s tr i ctA t t or neyG r aff

, even i f R ut h had a c aus e of a ct i on, the def endant s w er e i m m une fr om s ui t . T he D i s t r i ctC our t , t her efor e di s m i s s ed R uth’ s compl ai ntpur s uantt o § 1 9 1 5 A (b )( 1 ). R u th tim e ly ap p e a le d . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of R uth’ s cl ai m s forthe r eas ons d is c u s s e d in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s m e m o ra n d u m a n d s u m m a ri z e d a b o v e . 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 on appea l . See T h i r d Ci r c u i tL AR 2 7 . 4 . F o re s s e n t i a l l yth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r t h b yth e Di s t r i c tCo u r t , we w il l sum m aril yaf

firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er d ism issi n g R u th’s co m p lai n t. S ee T h ir d C i r cui tI . O . P. 10. 6.