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 11-17-2009 

# B ri an D ' Alfonso v . Euge ne C arpino 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 . 09-3461

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 " B ri an D ' Al fon s o v . Eu g e ne C arp ino " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 246. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/246D L D - 033 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- 3461 BR I AN D’ AL F ONS O,

A ppel l ant v . E U G E N E C A R P IN O , P a id F e d e ra l In f o rm a n t; G A B R IE L S A N T O S U S S O , P a id F e d e ra l In f o rm a n t; C A R M E N D E C L E R I C O , Secur i t i es I nves t i gat i on PA Sec. C om m i s s i on

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 . N o. 07- cv- 04816) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e M i chae l M . B ay l s on

____________________________________ S u b m itted f

o r P o ssible D ism issal Pu rsua n t t 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 ovember5, 2009 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember17, 2009)

OP I NI ON

P E R C UR I AM2

A ppel l antB r i an D ’ A l fons o w as i ndi ct ed i n U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia o n 1 6 c o u n ts o f m a il f ra u d in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 1 , a n d 4 c o u n ts o f

th e s a le o f

u n re g is te re d s e c u ri tie s in v io la tio n o f 1 5 U .S .C . § 77e( a) ( 2) . T he i ndi ctm entchar ged thatfr om J une of 1998 thr ough A pr i l of 2000, D ’A lf o n so o p e ra ted a sc h e m e to d e f ra u d in v e sto rs a n d to o b tain m o n e ya n d p ro p e rty u n d e r f a lse p re ten se s. O n M a y4 , 2 0 0 4 , D ’A lf o n so p lea d e d g u iltyto th e 1 6 c o u n ts o f m a il fr aud. O n February1, 2005, he w as s ent ence d t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entof 60 m onths on C ount1, and t o 15 m onths of i m pr i s onm enton eac h of C ount s 2 thr ough 16, t o run c o n c u rre n tlyw ith e a c h o th e r a n d c o n se c u tiv e to C o u n t 1 . A s p a rt o f h is p lea a g re e m e n t, D ’ A l fons o agr eed t o w ai ve hi s r i ghtt o appea l and col l at er al l ychal l enge hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence . D ’ A l fons o appea l ed, butw e gr ant ed the governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o enfor ce the a p p ell ate w aive r an d d ism issed the a p p ea l ( C . A . N o . 0 5 -13 6 3 ). O n S e p te m b e r 5 , 2 0 0 7 , D ’A lf o n s o f ile d a c iv il r ig h ts a c tio n u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1983 agai ns tC arm en D eC l er i co, an i nves t i gat orforthe Penns y l vani a Secur i t i es C om m i s s i on, and tw o i ndi vi dual s al l eged t o have a ct ed as i nform ant s i n hi s cas e, E ugene C a rp in o a n d G a b rie l S a n to su ss o . D ’A lf o n so a lleg e d th a t th e se d e f e n d a n ts v io late d h is Four th A m endmentr i ghtt o be fr ee f r om w arr ant l es s s ear ches and hi s Fi fth A m endment r i ghtt o due pr oces s , and he a l l eged thatD eC l er i co vi ol at ed hi s Four t eenth A m endment r i ghtt o equal pr ot ect i on bys el ect i vel ypr os ecut i ng hi m . H e as s ert ed i n the compl ai ntt hat he hi r ed C arpi no and Sant os us s o i n the Spr i ng of 2000 t o w or k athi s j ew el rys t or e, w hi ch3

w as ow ned byhi s corpor at i on, T ech- V es t . C arpi no and Sant os us s o r emoved r ecor ds cont ai ni ng i nform at i on on T ech- ves t ’ s i nves t or s , fi nanci al tr ans act i ons , and s t ock tr ans fer s fr om the corpor at e off i ces , w i thouta w arr antorcons ent , pur s uantt o a cons pi r acythati nvol ved D eC l er i co. A l s o i n fur ther ance of the cons pi r acy , C arpi no and Sant os us s o i ns t al l ed audi o l i s t eni ng devi ces atthe j ew el rys t or e and r emoved j ew el ryand m o n e yf ro m th e sto re , w ith o u t a w a rra n t o r c o n se n t. C a rp in o a n d S a n to su ss o w e n t o n to t es t i fy , on J anuary30, 2003, befor e a f eder al gr and j urythatw as cons i der i ng a pendi ng i ndi ctm entagai ns tD ’ A l fons o, and theypr ovi ded i ncr i m i nat i ng evi dence , w hi ch D ’ A l fons o al l eges w as untruthful . D ’ A l fons o l at eramended hi s compl ai ntt o i ncl ude E liz a b e th A in s le e , E s q u ir e , a s a d e f e n d a n t. J us tpr i ort o i ni t i at i ng the ci vi l r i ght s act i on, on A ugus t14, 2007, D ’ A l fons o fi l ed a m ot i on t o vaca t e s ent ence under28 U . S. C . § 2255 i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor th e E a ste rn D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia, a lleg in g in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

trial c o u n se l, B enj ami n C ooper , E s qui r e, and pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct . H e cl ai m ed, i n part , thatthe pr os ecut or s know i ngl yperm i t t ed per j urybefor e the gr and j uryand fa i l ed t o di s cl os e that C arpi no and Sant os us s o w er e convi ct ed drug deal er s and thatone w as a s us pecti n an uns ol ved homi ci de. T he governm entm oved t o di s m i s s the s ect i on 2255 m ot i on on the bas i s of the col l at er al appea l w ai verexec ut ed byD ’ A l fons o i n connec t i on w i th hi s pl ea agr eement . O n A pr i l 3, 2008, the s ent enci ng courthel d an evi dent i aryhear i ng on the c la im th a t th e p le a a g re e m e n t w a iv e r w a s u n k n o w in g a n d in v o lu n ta ry.4

W h ile th e se c tio n 2 2 5 5 m o tio n p ro c e e d in g s w e re p e n d in g , D e C ler ico m o v e d to d ism iss D ’A lfo n so ’s civil ri g h ts co m p lai n t on the f o ll o w ing g rou n d s: th e c lai m s w ere barr ed bythe tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons appl i cabl e t o cl ai m s under42 U . S. C . § 1983, the Four th and Fi fth A m endmentcl ai m s w er e barr ed byH eck v. H um phr ey , 512 U . S. 477 ( 1994) , the Equal Pr ot ect i on cl ai m coul d nots ur vi ve Fed. R . C i v. Pr o. 12( b) ( 6) , and d a m a g e s a g a in st D e C ler ico in h is o f f icia l ca p a c ityw e re b a rre d b yth e E lev e n th A m endment . C arpi no al s o fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s , r ai s i ng H eck’ s favor abl e t erm i nat i on ru le a n d th e s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s d e f

e n s e . S a n to s u s s o d id n o t r e s p o n d to th e c o m p la in t. D ’A l fon so subm i t t ed o pp osi t i on t o the di sm i ssal m oti on s and sou gh ta def aultagainst S a n to s u s s o . In a n o rde r en tered o n A p ri l 17 , 2 0 0 8 , the s en tenc ing co u rtd ism issed D ’A lfo n so ’s s ect i on 2255 m ot i on, concl udi ng thathi s w ai verw i th r es pectt o s ect i on 2255 pr ocee di ngs w as enfor cea bl e bec aus e i tw as know i ng and vol unt ary . T he s ent enci ng courtcr edi t ed the tes tim o n yo f

a tto rn e yC o o p e r th a t h e e x p lain e d th e ter m s o f th e p lea a g re e m e n t to D ’A lfo n so , inclu d ing the w aive r pro v isi o n . T h e c o u rtd id n o t cred itD ’A lfo n so ’s tes tim o n yto th e c o n tra ry . D ’A lf o n so a p p e a led . O n S e p tem b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 , w e d e c lin e d to i s s ue a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty , concl udi ng that“j ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d notdebat e the [ se n ten c in g c o u rt’s] c o n c lu sio n s th a t [ D ’A lf o n so ] k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ilyw a iv e d h is r i ghtt o appea l and col l at er al l ychal l enge hi s s ent ence . . . and thatenfor ci ng the w ai ver d o es n o t r esu ltin a m iscarri ag e o f ju sti ce . S lack v . M cD an iel , 5 2 9 U . S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (20 0 0 );5

U n ite d S ta te s v . K h a tta k , 2 7 3 F .3 d 5 5 7 , 5 6 2 -6 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).” M e a n w h ile, in a n o rd e r e n ter e d o n Ju n e 2 , 2 0 0 8 , the D istric t C o u rt, i n th e c iv il ri g h ts acti o n , o rde red the e n tryo f a d ef au ltw ith resp ec t t o S an tosu sso , a state p ri so n er, se e F e d . R . C iv . P ro . 5 5 (a ), b u t th e c o u rt d e f e rre d e n tryo f

a ju d g m e n t ag a in st h im pendi ng di s covery . I n an or derent er ed on J ul y31, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed D eC l er i co’ s and C arpi no’ s m ot i ons t o di s m i s s , r eas oni ng thatthe depr i vat i on of D ’ A l fons o’ s pr opertyw i thouta w arr antt ook pl ace befor e the i ndi ctm ent . T hus , the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons forthe ac t i on expi r ed no l at erthan M ay4, 2006, tw o y ear s aft erhe pl eade d gui l tyand w el l befor e hi s ci vi l r i ght s act i on w as fi l ed. See W i l s on v. G ar ci a, 471 U . S . 2 6 1 , 2 7 6 (19 8 5 ) (st ate statute o f li m it ati o n s fo r t o rt s ap p li es to civil r igh ts acti o n ); B o u g h e r v . U n iv e rsityo f P itt sb u rg h , 8 8 2 F .2 d 7 4 , 7 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ) (to rt a c tio n in Penns y l vani a has tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . ) I ns ofaras i tappea r ed thatdefe ndant A i ns l ee ha d notbeen s erved, the D i s tr i ctC our tgave not i ce of i t s i nt entt o di s m i s s the amended compl ai ntas t o herforfai l ur e t o pr os ecut e. D ’ A l fons o w as di r ect ed t o r es pond t o the r emai ni ng i s s ues i n the ca s e. Ju st ov er a y ea r l ater, in an o rde r en tered o n A u g u st 10 , 2 0 0 9 , the D istri ct C o u rt di s m i s s ed the ca s e as t o t he r emai ni ng defe ndant s , M s . A i ns l ee a nd Sant os us s o. T he D i s tr i ctC our tw as di s s at i s fi ed w i th D ’ A l fons o’ s r es pons e conc erni ng the r emai ni ng i s s ues and conc l uded thatthe ac t i on agai ns tthes e def endant s coul d notbe mai nt ai ned, s ee F ed. R . C i v. P ro. 12 (b) (6) . In addit i on , the co urtreas on ed thati t s t i m e-baranaly si s al so6

app l i ed to the rem ai ning def end ants , and , w i th respectt o the defau l tenter ed ag ai nst Sant os us s o, D ’ A l fons o had nott aken s t eps t o obt ai n a j udgm ent , s ee Fed. R . C i v. Pr o. 5 5 (b). D ’ A l fons o appea l s . O urC l erk gr ant ed hi m l eave t o appea l i n form a paupe r i s and a d v is e d h im th a t h is a p p e a l w a s s u b je c t to s u m m a ry d is m is s a l u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) , o rs u mm a r ya f f i r ma n c e u n d e rT h i r d Ci r . L AR 2 7 . 4 a n d I . O. P . 1 0 . 6 . He w as i nvi t ed t o s ubm i tar gum enti n w r i t i ng; he has notdone s o. W e w ill d is m is s th e a p p e a l a s f ri v o lo u s . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . A n a p p e lla n t m a yp ro s e c u te h is a p p e a l w ith o u t p re p a ym e n t o f th e f e e s , 2 8 U .S .C . § 1915( a) ( 1) , butthe i n form a paupe r i s s t atut e pr ovi des thatthe C our ts hal l di s m i s s the a p p e a l a t a n ytim e if

th e C o u rt d e te rm in e s th a t it is f ri v o lo u s , 2 8 U .S .C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . A n appea l i s fr i vol ous w hen i tl acks an ar guabl e bas i s ei theri n l aw or f a c t. N e itzk e v . W ill iam s, 4 9 0 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (1 9 8 9 ). T h is a p p e a l lac k s a n a rg u a b le b a sis i n l aw , beca us e, i f D ’ A l fons o’ s cl ai m s have a l r eadyacc rued, then hi s act i on i s t i m ebarr ed, j ustas the D i stri ctC ou rtcon cl ud ed. If hi s cl ai m s have n ot y etaccrued, becau se th e yim p lica te th e v a lid ityo f h is c o n v ictio n , the a c tio n is b a rre d b yH e c k ’s f a v o ra b le term ination rule. C f. B ern it sk yv . U n it ed S tat es, 62 0 F . 2 d 9 4 8 , 9 5 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 0 ) (co u rt is free to af

firm jud g m en t on an yb asis w h ich f ind s su p p o rtin the rec o rd). In H eck, the S up rem e C ou rtheld that “harm caused byact i on s w ho se unlaw fulness w oul d r endera convi ct i on ors ent ence i nval i d” i s notcogni zabl e under42 U . S. C . § 1983,7

unl es s the convi ct i on ors ent ence w as “r ever s ed on di r ectappea l , expunged byexec ut i ve or der , decl ar ed i nval i d bya s t at e tr i bunal author i zed t o m ake s uch det erm i nat i on, or cal l ed i nt o ques t i on bya fe der al court ' s i s s uance of a w r i tof habe as corpus . ” 512 U . S. at 486- 87. See al s o E dw ar ds v. B al i s ok, 520 U . S. 641, 645- 47 ( 1997) . T he purpos e of the r equi r ement“i s t o avoi d par al l el l i t i gat i on of pr obabl e ca us e and gui l t , ” and t o pr event “the cl ai m antfr om s ucce edi ng i n a t or tact i on aft erhavi ng been c onvi ct ed i n the un derl y i ng cri m i nal pr osecuti on , w hich w ou l d run co un t er t o the j ud i ci al po l i cyagainst creat i ng tw o co nfli ct i ng res olut i on s ar i si ng from the sam e t ransact i on . ” G i l l es v. D avis , 4 2 7 F . 3 d 1 9 7 , 2 0 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). I n G i bs on v. Super i nt endent , N . J . D ep’ tof Law and Publ i c Safe ty , 411 F. 3d 427 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) , we a d d r e s s e d wh e th e rHe c k a p p l i e d t o F o u r th Am e n d me n tc l a i ms , a n d we a p p ro v e d o f

a f a c t-b a se d in q u iryin to w h e th e r th e p a rticu lar c laim im p lied th e in v a lid ity of the under l y i ng convi ct i on. I d. at450 ( “H eck doe s nots etfor th a ca t egor i cal rul e that al l Four th A m endmentcl ai m s acc rue atthe t i m e of the vi ol at i on. ”) . M or eover , i n G i bs on, w e hel d thatan i ndi vi dual ’ s E qual Pr ot ect i on cl ai m thatl aw enfor cementper s onnel e n g a g e d in ra c iallyse lec tiv e law e n f o rc e m e n t p ra c tice s d id n o t b e g in to ru n u n til h is convi ct i on had bee n vaca t ed. I d. at440- 41. D ’ A l fons o’ s Four th A m endmentand due pr oces s cl ai m s pert ai n t o the depr i vat i on of hi s pr operty , s peci fi cal l yT ech- V es t ’ s r ecor ds , j ew el ryand money . H i s E qual Pr ot ect i on cl ai m pert ai ns t o a s el ect i ve pr os ecut i on. I tthus m aybe, as the movi ngW i th r es pectt o t he Four th A m endmentand due pr oces s cl ai m s , D ’ A l fons o appea r ed 1 t o al l ege thatthe def

endant s depr i ved hi m of m at er i al , excul pat oryevi dence . See B r ady v . M a ryla n d , 3 7 3 U .S . 8 3 (1 9 6 3 ). 8 d e f e n d a n ts n o ted , tha t D ’A lf o n so ’s c laim s c o n c e rn in g th e w a rra n tles s re m o v a l o f h is p ro p e rty , an d th e se lec tiv e e n f o rc e m e n t ag a in st h im o f sta te s e c u rities law s, w o u ld , if s ucce s s ful , have the ef

fec tof r ender i ng hi s cr i m i nal convi ct i ons i nval i d. I d. at451. 1 S in c e h is c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e h a v e n e v e r b e e n re v e rse d , ex p u n g e d o r d e c lar e d in v a lid byanycourt , anycl ai m thatw oul d i m pl ythe i nval i di tyof hi s under l y i ng convi ct i on has notacc rued and w i l l notacc rue unt i l hi s convi ct i on has been ove r turned. See M ont gom eryv. D eSi m one, 159 F. 3d 120, 126 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( al though s t at e l aw s et s t he a p p lic a b le lim ita tio n s p e ri o d , f e d e ra l la w d ic ta te s w h e n th e a c tio n a c c ru e s ). I n thi s s cena r i o, D ’ A l fons o’ s ci vi l r i ght s act i on i s barr ed as pr ematur e, r athert han barr ed as havi ng been f i l ed t oo l at e, and the di s m i s s al of hi s amended compl ai nti s on the bas i s thatthe cl ai m s ar e notcogni zabl e. H eck, 512 U . S. at486- 87. H ow ever , beca us e of d o c trin e s lik e in d e p e n d e n t so u rc e , ine v itab le d isc o v e ry , an d h a rm les s e rro r, n o t all F o u rth A m endmentcl ai m s , i f s ucce s s ful , w oul d i m pl ythe i nval i di tyof a c onvi ct i on. I d. at487 n. 7. T o the ext entthatD ’ A l fons o’ s cl ai m s acc rued pr i ort o hi s gui l typl ea, the D i s tr i ct C our tpr oper l yappl i ed the governi ng l aw i n concl udi ng thathi s fede r al cons t i tut i onal caus es of ac t i on w er e barr ed bythe tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i on appl i cabl e t o t or t s . See 42 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 5524 ( W es t2004) . A n act i on br oughtunder42 U . S. C . § 1983 i s s ubj ectt o t he s t at e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons governi ng per s onal i nj uryact i ons . W i l s on, 4719

U .S . a t 2 7 6 -2 7 8 . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l di s m i s s the appe al as fr i vol ous pur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B )( i) .