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 Third C ircuit 3-19-2008 

# Mendo z a v . Mei sel P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4627

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C ircuit at V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit 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 by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M e ndo za v

. M ei s el " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1413. http://digit alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2008/1413D L D - 132 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. 07- 4627

___________ HI GI NI O M E NDOZ A,

A p p e llan t, v . W IL L IA M M E IS E L , B re n tw o o d P o lice O f f ice r; G E R A L D M I K E L E N I S, B r entw ood Pol i ce O ffi cer

____________________________________ 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 07- cv- 00723) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e D avi d S. C er cone

____________________________________ S u b mi tt e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n 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 February22, 2008 Bef or e : BA RR Y , CH A G A RE S A N D G RE EN BE RG , CI RC U I T J U D G ES.

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ar ch 19, 2008)O n M a y2 4 , 2 0 0 7 , M e n d o z a w a s tic k e ted f o r “ d riv in g w h ile o p e ra tin g p riv ileg e is 1 s us pended orr evoked” i n vi ol at i on of 75 Pa. C . S. § 1543. A tthatt i m e he s i gned an a c k n o w le d g m e n t th a t h is lic e n s e h a d b e e n s u rr e n d e re d a s a re s u lt o f a p ri o r s u s p e n s io n . A ppel l antappar ent l yhas a hi s t oryof dr i vi ng w hi l e hi s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e i s s us pended, dat i ng back t o atl eas tFebruary5, 1998. See M endozav. L ar ot onda, 2: 07cv210, D oc. N o. 1- 2 atp. 4 2 _________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM A p p e llan t, H ig in io M e n d o z a , p ro c e e d in g p ro se a n d in f o rm a p a u p e ris, a p p e a ls fr om the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng hi s ci vi l r i ght s compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o s t at e a c la im . F o r t h e f

o llo w in g re a s o n s , w e w ill d is m is s th e a p p e a l p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). T hi s cas e ar i s es fr om s ever al m ot orvehi cl e convi ct i ons ent er ed aga i ns tthe A ppel l antw hi ch he a l l eges w er e the r es ul tof har as s m ent , r aci al pr ofi l i ng and r et al i at i on b yth e B re n tw o o d P o lice D e p a rtm e n t. M e n d o z a f iled a c o m p lain t se e k in g d a m a g e s to c o m p e n sa te f

o r lo ss o f e m p lo ym e n t d u e to th e su sp e n sio n o f h is d riv in g p riv ileg e s, in a lle g e d v io la tio n o f

h is e q u a l p ro te c tio n a n d d u e p ro c e s s ri g h ts p u rs u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1983. H e furtherr eques t s thathi s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e be r eturned t o hi m and thathi s dr i vi ng s us pens i on and tr aff

i c ci t at i ons be overturned. M endozaal s o r eques t s a hea r i ng i n fede r al d istric t co u rt to e sta b lish th a t h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts h a v e b e e n a b rid g e d a s th e re su lt o f h is c o n v ictio n s f

o r tra f f ic o f f e n se s. H e c laim s th a t u n id e n tifie d c o u rt tra n sc rip ts a n d a u d io

1T he C ourtconduct ed a tw o- s t ep ana l y s i s t o det erm i ne w hethert o di r ects ervi ce of 2 the compl ai nt , becaus e M endozas oughtt o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s . See R om an v. J eff es , 904 F. 2d 192, 194 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 1990) . T he C ourtfound M endozat o be w i thout s u f f i c i e n tf u n d s t o p a yth e r e q u i r e d f i l i n g f e e a n d g r a n t e d h i m l e a v e t o p r o c e e d i n f o rma p a u p e ri s . 3 a n d v isu a l m a ter ials su p p o rt h is v iew th a t th e se rie s o f tick e ts h e re c e iv e d c o n stitu te evi dence of r aci al pr ofi l i ng and thatthes e mat er i al s w i l l demonstr at e “the patt ern/ s , or di s cr epanc i es , and i nacc ur aci es thatt ook pl ace . ” T h e D istri ct C o u rtd ism issed M en d o za ’s ca se u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(i i) . 2 T h e D istric t C o u rt re a so n e d th a t M e n d o z a is b a rre d f ro m a ss e rtin g a § 1 9 8 3 c laim u n til the co nv i ct i on s on h i s chal l eng ed m otorveh i cl e off enses are s etasi de o r have o therw i se t erm i nat ed i n hi s favor . See H eck v. H um phr ey , 512 U . S. 477, 486 ( 1994) ( § 1983 damages act i ons ar e notappr opr i at e vehi cl es forchal l engi ng the val i di tyof out s t andi ng c rim in a l ju d g m e n ts th a t n e c e ss a rilyre q u ire th e p lain tiff to p ro v e th e u n law f

u ln e ss o f h is convi ct i on orconfi nement ) . M endozafi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l , and w e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overa di s m i s s al u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ), see , e.g., A ll ah v . S eive rl ing , 2 2 9 F . 3 d 2 2 0 , 2 2 3 (3d C ir . 2000) , and conc l ude thatM endoza ’ s appea l fai l s becaus e i ti s “i ndi s put abl ym er i t l es s . ” N e itz k e v . W illia m s , 4 9 0 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 7 (1 9 8 9 ). W e d is a g re e w ith th e D is tr ic t C o u rtth a t H e c k a p p lie s to a c a s e s u c h a s M e n d o z a ’s . H eck doe s notbara § 1983 cl ai m w her e the pl ai nt i ff i s unabl e t o chal l enge hi s condi t i ons of conf i nementthr ough a pet i t i on forfede r al habea s corpus . L eatherv. E y ck, 180 F. 3d4

4 2 0 , 4 2 4 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). B e c a u se M e n d o z a w a s n e v e r in c a rc e ra ted , o r o th e rw ise in cus t ody , fede r al habea s r el i ef ha s neverbeen a vai l abl e t o hi m and, ther efor e, H eck c annot appl y . I d. H ow ever , w e mayaff i rm the D i s tr i ctC ourton anygr ound s upport ed bythe re c o rd . S e e T o u rs c h e r v . M c C u llo u g h , 1 8 4 F .3 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). M endozahas fai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m thatcont ai ns even a n ar guabl e bas i s i n l aw for vi ol at i ons of ei therthe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e orthe Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e aga i ns tei ther defe nd ant. “[T ]o sust ai n a § 19 83 cl ai m based u po n a v i olat i on of p rocedu ral du e process [ a p l a i n t i f

f ] mu s t , a ta mi n i mu m, p r o v e r e c k l e s s n e s s o r‘ g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e ’ a n d i n s o me i ns t ance m aybe r equi r ed t o s how a ‘ del i ber at e dec i s i on t o depr i ve’ the pl ai nt i ff of due p roc ess.” Jo rda n v . F o x , R o thsc h il d , O ’B ri en & F ran k el, 2 0 F . 3 d 1 2 5 0 , 1 2 7 7 (3d C ir . 1994) , ci t i ng D ani el s v. W i l l i am, 474 U . S. 327, 333- 34 ( 1986) . M endozahas notal l eged anyfac t s t o s upportan i nt ent i onal orr eckl es s depr i vat i on of due pr oces s . H ow ever , even if h e d id a n d th e C o m m o n w e a lth o f P e n n sy lv a n ia h a d n o leg a l b a sis f o r su sp e n d in g h is l i cens e, M endozahad var i ous r emedi es thathe coul d have pur s ued t o r etr i eve hi s l i cens e, i ncl udi ng an appl i cat i on forr ei ns t at ement . “[A ] n unauthor i zed i nt ent i onal depr i vat i on of pr opertybya s t at e empl oy ee doe s notcons t i tut e a vi ol at i on of the pr ocedur al r equi r ement s of the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Fourt eenth A m endmenti f a meani ngful pos t depr i vat i on r emedyforthe l os s i s avai l abl e. ” H uds on v. Pal m er , 468 U . S. 517, 533 (1984 ); see al so B el l v. B urson, 40 2 U . S . 53 5 (197 1) ( suspensi on of a d ri ver’ s l i cense i m pl i cat es a pr ot ect i bl e pr opertyi nt er es t ) . M or eover , M endozadoes notcl ai m t o have5

been de ni ed a he ar i ng t o chal l enge the s us pens i on of hi s l i cens e; r ather , he al l eges thatthe lo ss o f h is lice n se c a u se d h im e c o n o m ic h a rd sh ip . S u c h a n a lleg a tio n is n o t su f f icie n t to c o n stitu te a D u e P ro c e ss v io latio n . T h e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se is s a tisf ied if , “w h e n a S tate se e k s to ter m in a te a n in ter e st s u c h a s [ a n in d iv id u a l’s d riv e rs’ lice n se a n d re g istra tio n ],” it aff or ds “‘ not i ce a nd opportuni tyfor[a] hear i ng appr opr i at e t o the natur e of the ca s e’ befor e the t erm i nat i on becomes eff ect i ve. ” B el l , 402 U . S. at542. M endozadoes not a lle g e h e w a s d e n ie d s u c h a n o p p o rtu n ity. M e n d o z a a lso f

a ils to a lleg e o r p ro v id e a n ye v id e n c e th a t h e w a s tre a ted d if f e re n tly fr om otherpeopl e w ho ar e s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed, w hi ch i s nece s s aryt o s t at e an e qual pr ot ect i on cl ai m . See C i tyof C l eburne v. C l eburne Li vi ng C tr . , I nc. , 473 U . S. 432, 439 (1 9 8 5 ); K e e n a n v . C ityo f P h ila., 9 8 3 F .2 d 4 5 9 , 4 6 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). A c c o rd in g ly , h is e q u a l p ro te c tio n c la im m u s t a ls o b e d is m is s e d . M endoza ’ s r et al i at i on cl ai m l i kew i s e l acks m er i t . R et al i at i on forthe exe r ci s e of cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed r i ght s i s i t s el f a c ons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. W hi t e v. N apol eon, 897 F. 2d 103, 111- 12 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ; s ee a l s o A l l ah v. Sei ver l i ng, 229 F. 3d 220, 224- 25 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( “[G ] overnm entact i ons , w hi ch s t andi ng al one do notvi ol at e the C o n s t i tu t i o n , m a y n o n e th e l e s s b e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l t o rt s i f m o t i v a t e d i n s u b s t a n t i a l p a rtb y a des i r e t o puni s h an i ndi vi dual forexer ci s e of acons t i tut i onal r i ght . ”) . H ow ever , M endoza h a s f a iled to a lleg e f

a c ts d e m o n stra tin g a c a u sa l li n k b e tw e e n h is c o n stitu tio n a lly p ro te c te d c o n d u c t o f

f ilin g a la w s u it, a n d th e tr a f f ic c ita tio n h e re c e iv e d o n M a y2 4 , 2 0 0 7 .6

F or the fo regoi ng reas on s, w e con cl ud e the ap peal i s m eri t l ess and w e w i l l dis m i ss itp u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(i ).