2010 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 3-22-2010 

# J e nni fe r Lincoln v

. Leo H ansh a

w 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 . 09-2683

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_2010

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 2010 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 " J e nni fe r L inc o ln v

. L e o H an sh a

w " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1677. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1677H o n . A . W al l ace T as hi m a, Seni orJ udge, U ni t ed St at es * C our tof A ppeal s forthe N i nth C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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- 2683

J enni ferL I N C O L N , D ani el Z i m m erm an, and G r egoryZ i m m erm an, A pp el l ants v. D et ect i ve Leo H A N SH A W , D et ect i ve A r thurE r l e, Super i nt ent dentM i chae l C hi tw ood a n d U p p e r D a rb yT o w n sh ip

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 2- 08- cv- 04207) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . S tew a rt R . D a lze ll Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February10, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , R O T H and TA SH I M A , C i r cui tJ udges * ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 22, 2010) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

T A SH I M A , C i r cui tJ udge. A p p ell an ts Jen n ifer L inco ln (“L inco ln”), D an iel Z im m erm an , an d G reg o ry Z i m m erm an appe al the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof A ppel l ees D et ect i ve Leo H ans haw , D et ect i ve A r thurE r l e, Super i nt endentM i chae l C hi tw ood, and U p p e r D a rb yT o w n sh ip . W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , an d w e w ill a f f ir m . I . Fac t ualand Pr oc e dur alBackg r ound O n the ni ghtof A pr i l 10, 2009, the D ol l arD en s t or e i n Secane , Penns y l vani a, w as bur gl ar i zed. ( A - 1052) A cas e of l ot t erys cr at ch- off t i cket s w as s t ol en. ( A - 1052) L i ncol n, the ow nerof the D ol l arD en, pr ovi ded a l i s tof form erempl oy ees and l ot t erys er i al n u m b e rs to D e tec tiv e H a n sh a w a n d o th e r o f f ice rs w h o re sp o n d e d to th e b u rg lar yre p o rt to as s i s tthem i n t hei ri nves t i gat i on. ( A - 1052) A s ur vei l l ance vi deo of f or m erempl oy ee B a rryM a p p (“ M a p p ” ) c a sh in g in sto len lo ttery t ick e ts o n th e n ig h t o f th e b u rg lar yled to h is i d en ti fica ti o n as th e su sp ec t. (A -10 5 3 ) De t e c t i v e Ha n s h a w p r e p a r e d a wa rr a n tf o rM a p p ’ s a rr e s to n Ap r i l 2 6 , 2 0 0 6 . ( A1 0 5 3 ) T h at m o rnin g , D etec ti v es H an sh aw an d E arle, ac co m p an ied b yO ff icer R o b ert B al es , att empt ed t o s erve the arr es tw arr antatM app’ s r es i dence . ( B l ue 9) A l though M app w as n o t ho m e, th e d etec ti v es sp o k e to h is m o ther a n d ad v ised h er tha t M ap p sh o u ld turn hi m s el f i n as s oon as pos s i bl e. ( B l ue 9) L at erthatday , M app dec i ded t o s urr enderand O ffi cerB al es r eturned t o M app’ s hom e t o arr es thi m and tr ans por thi m t o pol i ce3

h ea d q u arters. (B lue 9 ) O ff icer B ales testi fied that w h il e in th e b ac k o f h is po li ce ca r, M app r epea t edl ycompl ai ned, “Thi s i s B ul l s hi t . I s houl dn’ tbe arr es t ed forthi s . I had a d ea l w ith the b it ch an d I l et he r cu t m yfa ce so that sh e w o u ldn ’tsen d m e to jail . ” (A -14 7 ) O nce a tpol i ce he adquart er s , M app w as i nt ervi ew ed byD et ect i ves H ans haw and E r l e. M app gave a w r i t t en s t at ementi n w hi ch he a dm i t t ed t o havi ng bur gl ar i zed the D ol l arD en on A pr i l 10, 2006. H e al s o admi t t ed t o att empt i ng t o r e- bur gl ar i ze the D ol l ar D en on A pr i l 16, 2006, E as t erD ay . H e cl ai m ed thatupon ent er i ng the D ol l arD en, he w as j um ped bythe s t or e ow ner ’ s boy fr i end and hi s br other . ( A - 1043) M app s ai d thatt he m en w ai t ed forL i ncol n t o arr i ve atthe s t or e. W hen Li ncol n arr i ved atthe s t or e, s he m a d e a d e a l w ith M a p p th a t if h e a llo w e d h e r to c u t h is f a c e w ith a b o x c u tter, sh e w o u ld notpr es s char ges forthe bur gl aryof the l ot t eryt i cket s . ( A 1043) She then al l egedl ys l i ced hi m and l ethi m go. M app had i n fac tbeen pi cked up byan ambul ance bl eedi ng fr om a cuton hi s fac e out s i de of hi s apart m entbui l di ng on A pr i l 16, 2006. H e t ol d the R i dl eyT ow ns hi p Pol i ce, w ho r es ponded t o r eport s of a s t abbi ng vi ct i m out s i de of the apa r t m entcompl ex, thathe h a d b e e n in

ju re d a s p a rt o f

a d ru g d e a l g o n e b a d . (A 9 0 5 -0 8 ) W h e n late r a c c u sin g L in c o ln o f in fli cti n g the w o u n d , M ap p claim ed to h av e li ed to the p o li ce o n the n igh t of h is i n jury in o rde r t o u p h o ld h is en d o f th e b arg ain w ith L inco ln. ( A 1 0 4 4 ) A ft erM app had made hi s acc us at i ons agai ns tL i ncol n t o the U pperD arbyPol i ce, D et ect i ve H anshaw asked h er t o co m e t o the st at i on for further di scussi on s of t he fir st4

b u rg lar y . (A 3 8 3 -8 3 ) A t th is in ter v iew , D e tec tiv e H a n sh a w c o n f ro n ted L in c o ln w ith M app’ s acc us at i ons agai ns ther . L i ncol n w as acc om pani ed t o the pol i ce he adquart er s by herboy fr i end, D ani el Z i m m erm an, w ho di d notpart i ci pat e i n the i nt ervi ew and s ati n t he w a itin g a re a . Atth i s t i me , De t e c t i v e Ha n s h a w r e c o g n i z e d Li n c o l n ’ s b o y f r i e n d a s th e s a me D ani el Z i m m erm an w ho w as the fa therof hi s w i fe’ s daught er . ( A 405) D et ect i ve H ans haw then not i fi ed hi s s upervi s orthathe had a pot ent i al confl i ctof i nt er es ti n the cas e, w hi ch w as r eas s i gned t o D et ect i ve Erl e. ( A 406) D et ect i ve H ans haw , al though no lo n g e r in c h a rg e o f

th e in v e stig a tio n in to L in c o ln a n d th e Z im m e rm a n s, c o n tin u e d to w o rk o n it. O n O ct ober5, 2006, D et ect i ve Erl e, w i th D et ect i ve H ans haw pr es ent , i nt ervi ew ed M app aga i n aboutthe al l eged s l as hi ng i nci dent . ( A 249- 50) M app pr ovi ded a s econd w r i t t en s t at ementaboutthe i nci dent . ( A 249) H e then i dent i fi ed Li ncol n and D ani el Z im m e rm a n f

ro m p h o to g ra p h ic lin e u p s a s tw o o f th e p e o p le w h o h a d a s s a u lte d h im . (A 2 6 8 -6 9 ) O n O c to b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 , D e tec tiv e E rle F iled a f f id a v its o f

p ro b a b le c a u se in s uppor tof thi r t een c r i m i nal char ges agai ns tL i ncol n and D ani el Z i m m erm an. ( A 889, 895) A j udge appr oved the arr es tw arr ant s and Li ncol n and Zi m m erm an w er e arr es t ed sh o rt lythere af

ter. O n O c to b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 6 , the U p p e r D a rb yP o lice D e p a rtm e n t re c e iv e d a p h o n e tip fr om D i ane M urphycl ai m i ng thatG r egoryZ i m m erm an’ s w i fe ha d t ol d herthathe had5

a d m itt e d to b e in g th e th ird p a rticip a n t in th e M a p p a ss a u lt. (A 2 7 7 ) B a se d o n th is i nform at i on, D et ect i ve Erl e r eques t ed thatD et ect i ve H ans haw pr epar e a thi r d phot o arr ay w i th G r egoryZ i m m erm an i n i t . ( A 282) D et ect i ve H ans haw then i nt ervi ew ed M app and p rese n ted h im w ith the p h o tog rap h s. M ap p iden ti fied G reg o ryZ im m erm an as th e third per s on w ho had as s aul t ed hi m . O n O ct ober28, 2006, D et ect i ve Erl e fi l ed an a ffi davi tof p rob ab le ca u se in su p p o rto f th irteen crim inal ch arg es a g ains t G reg o ryZ im m erm an . (A 899) A m agi s tr at e appr oved an a r r es tw arr ant . Sever al w eeks l at er , G r egoryZ i m m erm an w a s a rr e s te d . In Jul yof 2 00 7, a j uryacqu i t t ed L i nco l n an d the Z i m m erm ans of al l charges. ( A 1030- 40) Pl ai nt i ffs L i ncol n and the Zi m m erm ans now br i ng s ui tunder42 U . S. C . § 1983 for vi ol at i ons of thei rci vi l r i ght s . T heyacc us e D et ect i ves H ans haw and Erl e, as w el l as U p p e r D a rb yT o w n sh ip S u p e rin ten d e n t o f P o lice M ich a e l C h itw o o d , o f f a lse a rre st, m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on, and abus e of pr oces s i n vi ol at i on of pl ai nt i ffs ’ Four th and F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts. T h e ya lso a lleg e th a t D e tec tiv e s H a n sh a w a n d E rle c o n d u c ted a n in v e stig a tio n so u n re a so n a b le a n d tain ted b yc o n f licts o f in ter e st th a t it vi ol at ed thei rs ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r i ght s . T heyfur theracc us e al l defe ndant s of a cons pi r acyt o vi ol at e thei rci vi l r i ght s . Pl ai nt i ffs al s o al l ege thatSuper i nt endent C h itw o o d m a d e sta tem e n ts to th e m e d ia in v io latio n o f th e ir S ix th a n d F o u rte e n th am end m ent r i gh t s.Monel lv. D ep’ tof Soc. Ser v. , 4 3 6 U . S . 6 5 8 (19 7 8 ). 1 6 I n addi t i on, pl ai nt i ffs s ued U pperD arbyT ow ns hi p, cl ai m i ng thati t s l ack of a pol i cyorpr act i ce f

oradequa t el yhandl i ng confl i ct s of i nt er es tbetw een i nves t i gat i ng offi cer s and cr i m i nal s us pect s w as r es pons i bl e forvi ol at i ons of thei rci vi l r i ght s under Mo n e ll . Fi nal l y , theyal l ege s t at e l aw cl ai m s forfal s e arr es t , m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on, and

1 fal s e l i ghti nvas i on of pr i vacy . ( A 68- 72) T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt g ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to d e f e n d a n ts o n a ll c o u n ts . I I . St andard of R evi ew O u r r e v ie w o f

a g ra n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is p le n a ry. L ex in g to n In s . C o . v . W . P a. H os p. , 4 2 3 F .3 d 3 1 8 , 3 2 2 n .2 (3 d . C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). “S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te onl yw her e, dr aw i ng al l i nfer ence s i n favorof the nonmovi ng party , ‘ ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t er of l aw . ’ ” Id . ( quot i ng F ED . R. C IV . P R OC . 5 6 (c )) . D efe ndant s , D et ect i ves H ans haw and Erl e, as w el l as Super i nt endentC hi tw ood, have pl ed qual i fi ed i m m uni ty . ( A 94) “The det erm i nat i on of i m m uni tyi s a ques t i on of la w ,” w h ic h is re v ie w e d d e n o v o b yth is C o u rt . Id . Q ual i fi ed i m m uni tys hi el ds g o v e rn m e n t o f

f ice rs p e rf

o rm in g d isc re tio n a ryf

u n c tio n s f

ro m su its se e k in g f

e d e ra l civ il damages “as l ong as thei ract i ons coul d r eas onabl yhave be en thoughtcons i s t entw i th the r i ght s theyar e al l eged t o have vi ol at ed. ” A nders on v. C r ei ght on , 483 U . S. 635, 638 (1987 ). A n o ffi cer i s ent i t l ed to qua l i fi ed im m un i tyi f, “[t ]aken i n the l i gh tm ost7

fa v o rab le t o the p artyasse rt ing the in jury , [] the fa cts all eg ed d o [n o t] sh o w the o ff icer’s conductvi ol at ed a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght , ” ori f the r i ghtvi ol at ed w as notcl ear l yes t abl i s hed a t tim e o f

th e v io la tio n . Sa u c ierv . Ka tz , 533 U . S. 194, 201 ( 2001) . T hi s courtm ay “exe r ci s e [i t s ] s ound di s cr et i on i n deci di ng w hi ch of the tw o pr ongs of the qual i fi ed i m m uni tyanal y s i s s houl d be addr es s ed fi r s ti n l i ghtof the ci r cumst ance s i n the part i cul ar cas e athand. ” P ears on v. C al lahan , 1 2 9 S . C t. 8 0 8 , 8 1 8 (2 0 0 9 ). III . A n a ly sis T he D i stri ctC ou rtheld that pl ai nti ffs had no tadd uced suffici ent fact s t o est abli sh a p r i ma f a c i e c a s e o f

ma l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n o rf a l s e a rr e s tu n d e rf

e d e r a l o rs t a t e l a w. ( A 19- 32) I n or dert o pr evai l on t hes e cl ai m s , pl ai nt i ffs m us tdemonstr at e thatthe cr i m i nal p roc ee d ing s ag ains t th em w ere init iat ed w ith o u t pro b ab le ca u se o r, u n d er W i l s on v. R usso , 2 1 2 F .3 d 7 8 1 (3 d . C ir. 2 0 0 0 ), “th a t [ d e f e n d a n ts] re c k les slyd isre g a rd e d th e tru th in thei rw arr antappl i cat i on and that a w arr ant appl i cat i on based o n w hat [defen dan t s] s houl d have t ol d the j udge w oul d have l acke d pr obabl e ca us e. ” Id . 7 8 6 ; s ee Sands v. McC or m i ck , 5 0 2 F .3 d 2 6 3 , 2 6 6 (3 d . C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). P la in tif f s h a v e d o n e n e ith e r. T he D i stri ctC ou rtcon cl ud ed, and w e agree, that the w arr ant appl i cat i on s est abli sh p ro b a b le c a u s e o n th e irf a c e . P la in tif

f s d o n o t a p p e a r t o c h a lle n g e th is ru lin g o n a p p e a l. T he arr es tw arr antappl i cat i ons r ecountthe s t at ement s of M app, the al l eged vi ct i m of and ey ew i tness t o the cr i m e, that he w as i n fac tassaul t ed b yL i nco l n an d the Z i m m erm ans, and i dent i fi ed them as hi s att acke r s . ( A 891- 902) T he det ect i ves ’ r eas onabl e bel i ef that8

an off ens e had be en comm i t t ed w as but tr es s ed bythe fa ctthatM app had, i n fac t , been tr eat ed forl ace r at i ons t o the fa ce on the dat e he s ai d he w as att acke d, a fa ctthatw as i ncl uded i n the arr es tw arr antappl i cat i ons . B eca us e ther e i s no evi dence thatM app f a b ric a ted h is s to ry , a re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld n o t f in d th a t th e d e tec tiv e s la c k e d p ro b a b le cause t o arr estL i nco l n an d the Z i m m erm ans. Pl ai nt i ffs ar gue thattheycan s t i l l pr evai l beca us e the det ect i ves “know i ngl yand del i ber at el y , orw i th r eckl es s di s r egar d forthe truth, m ade f al s e s t at ement s orom i s s i ons that cre ate a fa lseh o o d in ap p ly ing fo r a w arran t” an d “su ch stat em en ts or o m issi o n s are m at er i al , ornece s s ary , t o the fi ndi ng of pr obabl e ca us e. ” Sh e rw o o d v . Mu lvih ill , 113 F. 3d 396, 399 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . Pl ai nt i ffs cont end thatthe det ect i ves m ade s i x s uch omi s s i ons f ro m th e ir a p p lica tio n s f o r th e a rre st w a rra n ts. F irst, th e ya rg u e th a t th e d e tec tiv e s s h o u ld have di s cl os ed the fa ctthatD et ect i ve H ans haw w as r ai s i ng a daught erfather ed byD ani el Z im m e rm a n f

o r w h o m D a n iel h a d f

a iled to p a yc h ild su p p o rt. P lain tiff s a rg u e th a t th is r el at i ons hi p cr eat ed a c onfl i ctof i nt er es tand a pot ent i al m ot i vat i on forD et ect i ve H a n sh a w to h a rb o r a n im u s a g a in st D a n iel Z im m e rm a n , h is g irlfr ien d L in c o ln , an d h is br other . ( B l ue 34) Second, theycont end thatthe det ect i ves s houl d have di s cl os ed a w i tnes s s t at ementgi ven t o t he R i dl eyT ow ns hi p Pol i ce on the ni ghtM app w as h o sp italiz e d th a t h e h a d h e a rd a f ig h t “o u tsid e ” o f

th e D o llar D e n a s o p p o se d to w ith in it, w her e M app l at ercl ai m ed he w as as s aul t ed. ( B l ue 35) . T hi r d, theycont end thatthe det ect i ves s houl d have i ncl uded the i ncons i s t entphy s i cal des cr i pt i ons of the as s ai l ant9

l at erbel i eved t o be G r egoryZ i m m erm an gi ven byM app dur i ng the i nves t i gat i on. ( B l ue 38) Four th, theybel i eve thatthe appl i cat i on s houl d have i ncl uded the fa ctthatpol i ce s us pect ed G r egoryZ i m m erm an t o be the thi r d as s ai l antand hi s phot ogr aph w as i ncl uded i n the l i ne- up s how n t o M app bec aus e of a hear s ayt i p overthe t el ephone f r om D i ane M urphy . Fi fth, pl ai nt i ffs ar gue thatthe w arr antappl i cat i ons s houl d have i ncl uded the fa ct thatM app had a n oppor tuni tyt o fabr i cat e hi s al l egat i ons agai ns tL i ncol n and the Z i m m erm ans dur i ng the hour s w hen the det ect i ves fi r s tatt empt ed t o arr es thi m and in s te a d s p o k e to h is m o th e r a t h is h o m e , a n d w h e n h e s u rr e n d e re d h im s e lf to p o lic e . S ix th , p lain tiff

s a rg u e th a t th e a f

f id a v it sh o u ld h a v e d isc u ss e d th e lac k o f a f o re n sic i nves t i gat i on i nt o the al l eged c r i m e. In o rd e r to su c c e e d o n th is th e o ry , the p lain tiff s m u st d e m o n stra te th a t if th e f a c ts theycompl ai n w er e i m pr oper l yom i t t ed fr om the appl i cat i ons forthe arr es tw arr ant s had b e e n in c lu d e d in th e m , th e a f f id a v its w o u ld n o t h a v e e s ta b lis h e d p ro b a b le c a u s e . See W i l s on , 212 F. 3d at789. T hi s the pl ai nt i ffs cannotdo. A s di s cus s ed above , the w arr ant appl i cat i ons es t abl i s h pr obabl e ca us e on thei rfac e. E ven as s um i ng ar guendo that D et ect i ve Erl e ac t ed w i th r eckl es s i ndi ffe r ence forthe truth i n om i t t i ng the fa ct s pl ai nt i ffs c ite, h a d h e in c lu d e d a ll six , the ir p re se n c e w o u ld n o t h a v e d e f e a ted a f in d in g o f p ro b a b le c a u s e . P l a i n t i f

f s h a v e th e r e f

o r e f a i l e d a s a ma t t e ro f

l a w t o c o me f

o rwa r d wi th a p r i ma f a c ie c a s e o f

f a ls e a rr e s t a n d m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n . P l ai nti ffs further con t end that the invest i gati on l eading t o the det ect i ves’10

det erm i nat i on thatpr obabl e ca us e exi s t ed w as s o i nadequa t e as t o vi ol at e thei rs ubs t ant i ve d u e p roc ess righ ts un d er the F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t. A s sh o w n ab o v e, ho w ev er, pr obabl e ca us e w as es t abl i s hed as a mat t erof l aw atthe t i m e thatM app, as a compl ai ni ng vi ct i m w ho had s uffe r ed an i nj ury , m ade the al l egat i ons agai ns tL i ncol n and the Z i m m erm ans and corr ect l yi dent i fi ed them. A tthatt i m e, “the fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s w ith in [ D e tec tiv e E rle ’s] k n o w led g e [ w e re ] su f f icie n t in th e m se lv e s to w a rra n t a r eas onabl e per s on t o bel i eve thatan off ens e has been . . . comm i t t ed bythe per s ons t o be arr es t ed. ” O rs at t iv. N

. J. Stat e Pol i ce , 7 1 F . 3 d 4 8 0 , 4 8 3 (3d . C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). T h e o ff icers h a d n o f u rth e r c o n stitu tio n a l d u tyto c o n tin u e th e ir in v e stig a tio n in a n a ttem p t to u n e a rth p o te n tia lly e x c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e u n d e rm in in g th e p ro b a b le c a u s e d e te rm in a tio n . See B akerv. McC ol lan , 443 U . S. 137, 145- 46 ( 1979) . T he Four t eenth A m endmenti m pos ed no obl i gat i on on offi cer s t o uncoverfur therevi dence once pr obabl e ca us e has been e s ta b lis h e d a t th e tim e o f L in c o ln ’s a n d th e Z im m e rm a n s ’ a rr e s ts . Id . T hus , pl ai nt i ffs h a v e n o t sh o w n th a t a c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n o c c u rre d , m u c h les s th a t th e rig h t as se rte d ly vi ol at ed w as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed, s uffi ci entt o defe atqual i fi ed i m m uni ty . T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt c o rr e c tly g ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to d e f e n d a n ts o n th is c la im . A s p lai n ti ff

s h av e f ail ed to es tablish tha t anyo f U p p er D arb yT o w n sh ip’s o ff icers v iolated p lai n ti ff

s’ civil ri g h ts, their Mo n e ll c la im a ls o m u s t f a il. See W

i l l i am s v. B or ough of

W es tC hes t er , 8 9 1 F .2 d 4 5 8 , 4 6 7 (3 d . C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). Fi nal l y , pl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o i ntr oduce e ven a s ci nt i l l a of e vi dence thata cons pi r acyexi s t ed betw een D et ect i ves H ans haw and Erl e t o vi ol at e thei rci vi l r i ght s . Pl ai nt i ffs , as

the nonmovi ng party , ar e ent i t l ed t o have a l l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s dr aw n i n thei rfavorat the s um m aryj udgements t age. I n the abs ence of anyevi dence thatther e w as a meet i ng of th e m in d s to a c h iev e th e a lleg e d c o n sp ira c y ’s o b jec tiv e s, h o w e v e r, th e ya re n o t en tit led to a n in f e re n c e th a t th e irb a re a lle g a tio n s c re a te a n is s u e o f m a te ri a l f

a c t f o r t ri a l. Forthe above - s t at ed r eas ons , the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tw i l l be AF F I RMED .

1 1