2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-29-2012

Rodney Wells v. DA Philadelphia

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-3299

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Rodney Wells v. DA Philadelphia" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 927.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/927
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3299

___________

RODNEY WELLS, 

 Appellant

v.

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR 

THE PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Misc. No. 11-mc-00061)

District Judge: Honorable Gene E.K. Pratter

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

May 18, 2012

Before: RENDELL, FUENTES AND WEIS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 29, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Wells appeals pro se from the District Court’s order dismissing his 

complaint. We will affirm.

Wells is a Pennsylvania state prisoner. He was convicted in 1985 of murder and 
2

other crimes, including violation of the Pennsylvania Corrupt Organizations Act 

(“PCOA”), 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 911. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment 

on the murder conviction and consecutive terms of imprisonment on some of his others, 

but it suspended his sentence for the PCOA conviction. Wells has challenged these 

convictions in numerous state and federal proceedings over the years to no avail.

One of the ways he has done so has been by filing federal civil actions under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, including the one at issue here. Wells has asserted that personnel in the 

Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office committed various kinds of misconduct, including 

misconduct in connection with the Grand Jury, and that such misconduct requires 

production of sealed Grand Jury records that Wells alleges he could use to attack his 

convictions. Wells filed one such suit in 2004 (E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 04-cv-0605), but the 

District Court dismissed it and Wells did not appeal. He filed another such suit in 2006 

(E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 06-cv-01710). The District Court dismissed that suit as well, and we 

dismissed Wells’ appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Wells v. King, 232 F. 

App’x 148 (3d Cir. 2007). We explained that Wells’ claims are barred by Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), to the extent that they challenge the validity of his 

undisturbed criminal convictions. See Wells, 232 F. App’x at 149. We also explained 

that his claims are barred by prosecutorial immunity and otherwise lack merit. See id. at 

149-50. We have since affirmed the dismissal of another similar complaint as well. See

Wells v. Dist. Attorney’s Office of Phila. Cnty., 266 F. App’x 187, 188 (3d Cir. 2008).

In addition to filing these suits, Wells has filed numerous federal habeas petitions. 
3

The District Court denied his first habeas petition in 2003. We granted a certificate of 

appealability on whether Wells had shown his actual innocence of the PCOA charge in 

light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s subsequent interpretation of the PCOA. See

Wells v. Varner, 392 F. App’x 914, 916 & n.4 (3d Cir. 2010). We ultimately decided that 

we could not answer that question, however, because Wells’ suspended sentence on the 

PCOA conviction means that he is not and never will be “in custody” pursuant to that 

conviction for habeas purposes. See id. at 917-19. We affirmed the District Court’s 

denial of habeas relief for that reason. See id. at 919.

Wells later filed the suit at issue here. He again styled his complaint as one under 

§ 1983 and again sought documents relating to alleged misconduct in connection with the 

Grand Jury as to his PCOA charge. He also asserted that this Court’s ruling as to his 

PCOA conviction in his habeas appeal means that Heck no longer applies to that charge. 

The District Court docketed the complaint as a miscellaneous action, directed the 

defendant to respond, then dismissed it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) by 

order entered August 12, 2011. Wells appeals.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm. The District Court 

dismissed Wells’ complaint for the same reasons it gave in dismissing his numerous other 

similar complaints. The District Court did not address Wells’ assertion that our ruling in 

his habeas appeal has changed the landscape, but it has not. Our ruling was merely that 

Wells will never be “in custody” on his PCOA conviction for federal habeas purposes. 

We have not yet squarely decided whether Heck applies to convictions for which a 
4

remedy in habeas is unavailable in this situation. See Gilles v. Davis, 427 F.3d 197, 209-

10 (3d Cir. 2005); Torres v. Fauver, 292 F.3d 141, 145 & n.5 (3d Cir. 2002). We need 

not do so in this case, however, because Heck was not the only reason that we affirmed 

the District Court’s dismissal of Wells’ previous suits. Instead, we explained that Wells’ 

claims are barred by prosecutorial immunity and otherwise lack merit. See Wells, 232 F. 

App’x at 149-50. Nothing about our ruling in Wells’ habeas appeal calls those 

conclusions into question. 

In addition to dismissing Wells’ complaint, the District Court denied motions that 

he filed for appointment of counsel, a default judgment, a hearing, and other 

miscellaneous relief. Wells has raised no claim of error regarding those rulings and we 

perceive none.

For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Appellees’ 

motions for leave to file their brief out of time and for leave to file a supplemental 

appendix are granted, and Wells’ motions for a “default judgment” and to hold appellees 

in contempt are denied.