BLD-332 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 17-2238

___________

SIMEON BOZIC,

Appellant

v.

SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 16-cv-01763)

Magistrate Judge: Honorable Maureen P. Kelly

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or 

Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

August 10, 2017

Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, Jr., and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed October 16, 2017)

_________

OPINION*

_________

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

PER CURIAM

Simeon Bozic appeals the Magistrate Judge’s orders dismissing his complaint and 

denying his motion for reconsideration. For the reasons below, we will summarily affirm 

the Magistrate Judge’s judgment.

Bozic, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Greene County. He alleged that he was being held illegally in prison 

in violation of Pennsylvania statutes as well as of the Thirteenth Amendment of the 

United States Constitution. Appellee removed the matter to the United States District 

Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and filed a motion to dismiss. Bozic 

opposed the motion to dismiss and filed a motion to remand his state law claims to the 

Court of Common Pleas. A Magistrate Judge, sitting by consent of the parties pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss, denied Bozic’s motion to 

remand, and dismissed the complaint. Bozic filed a motion for reconsideration which the 

Magistrate Judge denied. He then filed a notice of appeal. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the dismissal of the 

complaint for failure to state a claim is plenary, see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 

236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), and our review of the Magistrate Judge’s exercise of 

supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is for an abuse of discretion. See

Bright v. Westmoreland Cty, 443 F.3d 276, 286 (3d Cir. 2006).

In 2007, Bozic was convicted of, inter alia, first-degree murder by a jury in the 

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. In March 2008, he was sentenced to the 
3

mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison without parole. His sentence was the 

result of a bargain with the Commonwealth: if he testified against his co-defendant, the 

Commonwealth would not seek the death penalty.

In his complaint, Bozic alleged that he discovered that there was no written 

sentencing order1in his criminal case and, therefore, his confinement was illegal. He 

argued that his confinement violated his Thirteenth Amendment right to be free from 

involuntary servitude. He contended that Appellee was unlawfully restraining and falsely 

imprisoning him in violation of Pennsylvania law.

Normally, a state prisoner cannot bring a claim for damages for an allegedly 

unconstitutional imprisonment until his conviction or sentence has been invalidated. 

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994).2 However, if success on the claims 

would not necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of the criminal judgment, the action may 

proceed. Id. at 487. To the extent that success on Bozic’s claims of unconstitutional 

confinement, unlawful restraint, and false imprisonment would undermine his criminal 

judgment, they are barred by Heck. But here, as discussed below, even if Bozic 

successfully proved that there was no written sentencing order, his sentence and 

 

1 To support his allegation that there is no written sentencing order, Bozic submitted a 

statement from the Records Supervisor at his prison. She stated that there was no 

sentencing order in her possession, i.e., at the prison. Bozic did not state whether he 

requested a copy of his sentencing order from the court that sentenced him. He simply 

claimed that no such order exists.

2 We note that in his habeas petition, which is pending in the District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Bozic explicitly stated that he was not raising this 

claim.
4

conviction would not be invalidated. Therefore, to the extent that Bozic challenges the 

paperwork, or lack thereof, regarding his sentence, his claims are not barred. However, 

they are meritless.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude 

except as a punishment for a crime if the party was “duly convicted.” See Tourscher, 184 

F.3d at 240. Bozic does not dispute that he was convicted of first-degree murder and that 

the sentencing judge sentenced him to the mandatory sentence of life in prison.3 That the 

Appellee does not possess a copy of a written sentencing order for Bozic, or that one does 

not exist, does not make his confinement unconstitutional or unlawful. Even if we were 

to decide that the failure to create a written sentencing order is an error, “[i]t is wellestablished that a prisoner cannot escape punishment simply because the court committed 

an error in passing sentence. Neither should one escape punishment when the error at 

issue is not in the sentence itself but only in the record keeping associated with the 

sentence.” Evans v. Sec’y Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 645 F.3d 650, 662 (3d Cir. 2011) (citations 

omitted). 

 

3 Appellee submitted the certified court commitment, Bozic’s criminal docket, and the 

transcripts of Bozic’s sentencing hearing. The docket indicates that on March 13, 2008, 

an order was docketed imposing the sentence. The certified court commitment indicates 

that Bozic was sentenced to life in prison for first-degree murder effective March 13, 

2008. The sentencing transcripts reflect that the sentencing court imposed a sentence of 

life in prison without parole for the first-degree murder conviction. Bozic does not 

dispute the authenticity of these documents, and it was not improper for the Magistrate 

Judge to consider them. See Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Industries, Inc., 

998 F.2d 1192, 1196-97 (3d Cir. 1993) (District Court may consider undisputedly 

authentic document attached to motion to dismiss).
5

Although the federal claim was dismissed before trial, the Magistrate Judge did 

not abuse her discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Bozic’s state law 

claims. It would be unfair and inconvenient to require the Appellee to continue to litigate 

Bozic’s meritless claims, and it would unnecessarily use the resources of the 

Pennsylvania state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (federal court has supplemental 

jurisdiction over related claims forming part of the same case or controversy); Bright, 443 

F.3d at 286 (if federal claims are dismissed before trial, federal court must decline 

supplemental jurisdiction unless (as here) judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to 

the parties justify it).

Bozic alleged that Appellee unlawfully restrained and falsely imprisoned him in 

violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 2902 & 2903. However, both unlawful restraint 

and false imprisonment require that the detention be unlawful. See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 

Ann. § 2902 (one commits unlawful restraint when one “restrains another unlawfully in 

circumstances exposing him to risk of serious bodily injury”); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 

§ 2903(a) (one commits false imprisonment when one “restrains another unlawfully so as 

to interfere substantially with his liberty”). Here, Appellee’s detention of Bozic is lawful, 

and his state law claims fail.

Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the 

appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by 

the Magistrate Judge, we will summarily affirm the Magistrate Judge’s order. See Third 

Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.