2008 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 12-23-2008 

# Mi k e Pe re z v . J ohn Gri ffin 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 . 08-2979

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_2008

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 2008 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 " Mi ke P e r ez v

. J o hn Gr i ffin" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 48. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/48CL D- 5 5 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. 08- 2979

___________ M I KE PEREZ, A ppel l ant v. J OHN J . GR I F F I N; L A W O F F IC E O F JO H N J. G R IF F IN

____________________________________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 01468) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC . C onner

____________________________________ 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 P 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 D ece m ber11, 2008 B efore: R E N D E L L , H A R D IM A N and V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: D ece m ber23, 2008)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C UR I AM M i ke Per ez, an i nm at e atthe Feder al C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on, For tD i x, N ewT hi s C our tvaca t ed the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entforthe def endant s i n Per ez’ 1 act i on fori nadequa t e medi cal tr eatm ent . Per ez v. U ni t ed St at es , 271 F. A pp’ x 240 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . U pon r emand, the D i s tr i ctC our tagai n gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof th e d e f e n d a n t s ; P e r e z ’ a p p e a l f r o m th a tj u d g me n ti s p e n d i n g . P e r e z v . Un i t e d S t a t e s , C. A. N o . 0 8 -2 8 0 7 . 2 J er s ey , fi l ed a pr o s e compl ai nti n t he M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a aga i ns tatt orney J ohn J . G r i ffi n and the Law O ffi ce of J ohn J . G r i ffi n ( “A ppel l ees ”) , al l egi ng m al pr act i ce, f ra u d , b re a c h o f

c o n tr a c t, a n d v io la tio n o f P e re z ’ c iv il r ig h ts u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . Speci fi cal l y , Per ez c l ai m ed thathe r et ai ned G r i ffi n t o br i ng a l aw s ui tagai ns tpr i s on o f f icia ls f o r in a d e q u a te m e d ica l ca re , tha t G rif f in f a iled to d o so , an d th a t G rif f in 1 del i ber at el yw i thhel d Per ez’ s fi l es t o ens ur e the di s m i s s al of Per ez’ s s ui tagai ns tpr i s on o f f icia ls a n d to d e p riv e P e re z o f m e a n in g f

u l ac c e ss to th e c o u rt. A p p e llee s m o v e d to di s m i s s the compl ai nt , cont endi ng that( 1) the mal pr act i ce, fr aud, and br eac h of contr act c laim s w e re b a rre d b yP e re z ’ f a ilu re to f

ile th e c e rtific a te o f

m e rit re q u ire d b yR u le 1042. 3 of the Penns y l vani a R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e and ( 2) the § 1983 cl ai m m us tbe di s m i s s ed bec aus e A ppel l ees ar e nots t at e ac t or s and ca nnotbe hel d r es pons i bl e forthe al l eged vi ol at i ons of cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . O n J une 9, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tcons trued A ppel l ees ’ fi l i ng as a mot i on forj udgm enton the pl eadi ngs , gr ant ed the mot i on, and s e p a r a t e l ye n t e r e d j u d g me n ta g a i n s tP e r e z o n a l l c o u n t s . F o rth e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m. O urr evi ew of an or dergr ant i ng a mot i on fora j udgm enton the pl eadi ngs under R ul e 12( c) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e i s pl enary . M el e v. Fed. R es erve B ank3

of N . Y . , 359 F. 3d 251, 253 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . T he fa ct s , and anyi nfer ence s dr aw n fr om them, ar e vi ew ed i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the nonmovi ng partyand the mot i on s houl d notbe gr ant ed “unl es s the movi ng partyhas es t abl i s hed thatther e i s no m at er i al i s s ue of f actt o r es ol ve, and thati ti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” I d. T aki ng a ll o f P e re z ’ a lleg a tio n s a s tru e , w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t h is f a ilu re to c o m p ly w i th R ul e 1042. 3 of the Penns y l vani a R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e i s fat al t o the cl ai m s of m a lp ra c tice , fr a u d , an d b re a c h o f c o n tra c t. S im ilarly , the lac k o f sta te a c tio n is f

a tal to h is ci vi l r i ght s cl ai m under42 U . S. C . § 1983. T urni ng fi r s tt o t he mal pr act i ce c l ai m , R ul e 1042. 3 r equi r es an “a t t orneyforthe pl ai nt i ff, orthe pl ai nt i ff i f notr epr es ent ed” w ho br i ngs an ac t i on bas ed on “a n al l egat i on thata l i cens ed pr ofes s i onal devi at ed fr om an ac cept abl e pr ofes s i onal s t andar d” t o fi l e a cert i fi cat e of m eri tw i thin si xtyday s of t he fil i ng of the com plai nt. T he cert i fi cat e m ust att es tt o the col or abl e mer i tof the cl ai m byi ncl udi ng one of the fol l ow i ng s t at ement s : ( 1) that “an app ropri at e l i censed professi on al ” has sup pli ed a w ri t t en st at em ent that there i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythatthe def endant ’ s conductfel l out s i de ac cept abl e pr ofes s i onal st and ards; (2) that the clai m againstthe d efen dan ti s based solel yon al l egati on s agai nst o th e r p ro f

e ss io n a ls f

o r w h o m th e d e f

e n d a n t is re sp o n sib le; o r (3 ) th a t ex p e rt tes tim o n yis u n n ec essa ryfo r pro sec u ti o n o f th e c lai m . P a. R . C iv. P. 10 4 2 . 3 (a). T h e ru le all o w s fo r a s i xty - dayext ens i on of the per i od forfi l i ng a ce r t i fi cat e of mer i tfor“good ca us e s how n. ” P a. R . C iv. P. 10 4 2 . 3 (d).W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e d e c lar a tio n P e re z f iled w ith h is 2 o p p o sitio n to th e m o tio n to d ism iss is n o t eq u iv a len t to a c e rtific a te o f m e rit b e c a u se it m er el yr ei t er at es the al l egat i ons i n the compl ai ntand does notcont ai n a s t at ement r egar di ng the col or abl e mer i tof hi s cl ai m s as r equi r ed byR ul e 1042. 3. 4 R ul e 1042. 3 i s a s ubs t ant i ve s t at e l aw thatfede r al di s tr i ctcourt s m us tappl y . C f. C hamber l ai n v. G i ampapa, 201 F. 3d 154, 158- 61 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( hol di ng thata N ew J er s eys t atut e s i m i l art o R ul e 1042. 3 s houl d be appl i ed as a s ubs t ant i ve s t at e l aw under the c h o ice o f law d o ctri n e f rom E ri e R . R . C o . v . T o m p k ins, 30 4 U . S . 6 4 (19 3 8 )); B re sn a h a n v . S c h e n k e r, 4 9 8 F . S u p p . 2 d 7 5 8 , 7 6 2 (E .D . P a . 2 0 0 7 ) (n o tin g th a t R u le 1 0 4 2 .3 “ h a s b e e n re p e a ted lyh e ld to b e c o n tro lli n g su b sta n tiv e law ” u n d e r th e E rie do ct ri ne). B yi t s expli ci tt erm s, the rul e app l i es t o b oth r epresent ed p l ai nti ffs and pro se pl ai nt i ffs , l i ke Per ez. I f a pl ai nt i ff doe s notcompl yw i th R ul e 1042. 3, the cl ai m s w i l l be d i s mi s s e d a n d a j u d g me n to f n o n p r o s e n t e r e d u p o n a mo t i o n b yth e d e f e n d a n t . P a . R. C i v. P. 1042. 6. H ow ever , the fa i l ur e t o compl yw i th R ul e 1042. 3 i s notfat al t o cl ai m s of pr ofes s i onal l i abi l i tyi f the pl ai nt i ff c an s how a “r eas onabl e exc us e” f orthe n o n c o m p lia n c e . W o m e r v . H illik e r, 9 0 8 A .2 d 2 6 9 , 2 7 9 -8 0 (P a . 2 0 0 6 ). I n the pr es entcas e, Per ez ne i therfi l ed a c ert i fi cat e of mer i tnorr eques t ed an e x te n s io n o f

tim e to d o s o . N o r d id h e p re s e n t a re a s o n a b le e x c u s e f o r f a ilin g to d o s o . 2 Per ez s t at ed thathe di d notfi l e a c ert i fi cat e of mer i tbeca us e he di d notbel i eve one w as r equi r ed. H ow ever , a pr o s e l i t i gant ’ s i gnor ance of orm i s t aken a s s um pt i ons aboutthe5

r equi r ement s of R ul e 1042. 3 cannots erve as a r eas onabl e exc us e. H ooverv. D avi l a, 862 A .2 d 5 9 1 , 5 9 5 -9 6 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 2 0 0 4 ). Per ez a l s o ar gued thathi s act i on agai ns tG r i ffi n w as one pr i m ar i l yforfr aud and br eac h of contr act , w hi ch do notr equi r e the ce r t i fi cat e of mer i tneede d forpr ofes s i onal l i abi l i tyact i ons . W e agr ee w i th t he abl e ana l y s i s of the D i s tr i ctC our tthatPer ez’ fr aud and br eac h of contr actcl ai m s ar e bas ed upon an a l l eged br eac h of dut i es G r i ffi n ow ed Per ez i n the cour s e of l egal r epr es ent at i on – i . e. , the al l eged f ai l ur es t o pr os ecut e the i nadequa t e medi cal car e l aw s ui tand r eturn Per ez’ l egal fi l e – and thatPer ez maynot avoi d the fi l i ng of a c ert i fi cat e of mer i tbyl abel i ng pr ofes s i onal l i abi l i tycl ai m s as s om ethi ng el s e. See, e. g. , V arnerv. C l as s i c C m ty s . C orp. , 890 A . 2d 1068, 1074 ( Pa. S u p e r. C t. 20 0 6 ) (e x p lain in g th a t “it is th e su b sta n c e o f th e c o m p lain t ra th e r th a n its f o rm ” th a t co n tro ls w h e th e r a c laim is f o r p ro f e ss io n a l li a b ili tya n d w h e th e r a c e rtific a te o f me r i ti s r e q u i r e d ) . I n f a c t , P e r e z c o n c e d e d i n h i s b r i e f i n o p p o s i t i o n th a th i s c l a i ms agai ns tG r i ffi n ar e bas ed s ol el yon a br eac h of pr ofes s i onal dut i es : “[t ] her e i s no doubt thatthe def

endant s [’ ] conducti nvol ves a pr ofes s i onal l egal m al pr act i ce vi ol at i on. ” T her efor e, Per ez’ fai l ur e t o fi l e a c ert i fi cat e of mer i ti s fat al t o hi s cl ai m s of m al pr act i ce, br eac h of contr act , and fr aud, and the D i s tr i ctC our tappr opr i at el ygr ant ed j udgm enton th e p l e a d i n g s a g a i n s th i m. Pe r e z a l s o c l a i me d th a tGr i f f i n v i o l a t e d h i s c i v i l r i g h t s u n d e r4 2 U. S. C. § 1 9 8 3 . To pr evai l on hi s § 1983 cl ai m , Per ez musts how thatG r i ffi n, w hi l e ac t i ng undercol orofPer ez f i l ed “f or m al obj ect i ons ” t o G r i ffi n s ervi ng as couns el forthe Law O ffi ces 3 of J ohn J . G r i ffi n beca us e of a “conf l i c[t ] of i nt er es tthatw i l l i m pede the pr oper p ro se c u tio n o f

th is c a se .” W e c o n stru e th a t d o c u m e n t as a m o tio n to d isq u a lifyG rif f in a n d , in lig h t o f

o u r su m m a ryd isp o sitio n o f th e a p p e a l, w e d e n yit. 6 s t at e l aw , depr i ved hi m of a c ons t i tut i onal ors t atut oryr i ght . K auche rv. C ountyof B u c k s, 4 5 5 F .3 d 4 1 8 , 4 2 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). P e re z ’ c o m p lain t alle g e s o n lyp riv a te tr ans act i ons betw een a t t orneyand cl i entw i th no cl ai m thatG r i ffi n act ed on beha l f of the s t at e orthathi s act i ons can be fai r l yattr i but ed t o the s t at e. Pr i vat e att orney s per form i ng thei rtr adi t i onal funct i ons ar e notcons i der ed t o actundercol orof s t at e l aw forpurpos es o f § 1 9 8 3 . S ee A n g eli co v . L eh igh V all eyH o sp . , Inc . , 1 8 4 F . 3 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ); s ee a l s o Pol k C ount yv. D ods on, 454 U . S. 312, 318 ( 1981) . B eca us e Per ez ha s not dem on strat ed thatG ri ffi n w as a st at e act or, his § 1 98 3 clai m fai l s. I n s um , w e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yent er ed j udgm enton the p l e a d i n g s i n f

a v o ro f Ap p e l l e e s a n d a g a i n s tP e r e z o n a l l c l a i ms a n d we wi l l a f f i r m. 3