2007 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 7-18-2007 

# S ch a effe r v . W i l son 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 . 07-1458

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_2007

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 2007 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 " S ch a effe r v

. W i l s on" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 728. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/728B L D - 272 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- 1458

________________ S TONEY L . S CHAEF F ER, A ppel l ant v. H A R R Y E . W I L SO N , Faci l i tySuper i nt endent ; T I M O T H Y C R O SS, St at e Pol i ce

Super vi s or ; and N A N C Y D . V E R N O N , D i s tr i ctA t t orney

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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 ( W . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 06- cv- 00189) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A r thurJ . Schw ab

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed ForPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al due t o a J ur i s di ct i onal D efe ctand Pos s i bl e D i s m i s s al Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B)

J une 21, 2007 Bef

or e : M CK EE, FU EN TES A N D V A N A N TW ER PEN , CI RC U I T J U D G ES

( Fi l ed J ul y18, 2007)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM St oneySchaef

fer , a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the U n ited S tate s D istric t 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 ism iss in g h is2

compl ai ntagai ns tH arryW i l s on, a pr i s on s uper i nt endent , T i m othyC r os s , a s t at e pol i ce s u p e rv is o r, a n d N a n c yV e rn o n , a d is tr ic t a tto rn e y , p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B ). W e w il l dism iss Sc h ae ff er’s ap p ea l pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). W e mustfi r s taddr es s ourj ur i s di ct i on t o ent ert ai n thi s appea l . W e have ju ri s d ic tio n o f

a p p e a ls f

ro m a ll f in a l d e c is io n s o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . Schaef ferfi l ed hi s not i ce of

appea l aft era M agi s tr at e J udge r ecomm ended thatthe D istric t C o u rt d ism iss h is c o m p lain t. T h e M a g istra te J u d g e ’s r e p o rt, h o w e v e r, is n o t a fin al, ap p ea lable o rde r un d er § 1 2 9 1 . S ee S iers v. M o rrash , 7 0 0 F . 2 d 1 1 3 , 1 1 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rtthen en tered a f inal o rde r ad o p ti n g the M ag istrate Ju d g e’s r eport . B utSchaef

fer ’ s appea l fr om the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s r eportdi d notr i pen upon entryof the fi nal or der . Per ez- Pr i ego v. A l achua C ountyC l erk of C our t , 148 F. 3d 1272, 1 2 7 3 (1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ); S e ri n e v . P e te rs o n , 9 8 9 F .2 d 3 7 1 , 3 7 2 -7 3 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). A lth o u g h S ch ae ff

er d id n o t fi le an o ther n o ti ce o f a p p ea l after the D istri ct C o u rt e n ter e d its f

in a l o rd e r, h e d id f

ile a n a p p lica tio n to p ro c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ris o n a p p e a l in th is C o u rt w ith in th irtyd a y s o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r. B e c a u se S c h a e f f e r tim e ly demonstr at ed an i nt entt o appea l , w e conc l ude thatw e have j ur i s di ct i on. See Sm i th v. B arry , 502 U . S. 244, 247- 49 ( 1992) ( hol di ng an appe l l at e br i ef mays erve as a not i ce of appea l ) ; Fl emi ng v. E vans , 481 F. 3d 1249, 1253- 54 ( 10 C i r . 2007) ( hol di ng courthad th j ur i s di ct i on w her e the appe l l antfi l ed a mot i on forl eave t o pr ocee d on appea l w i thout p rep ay m en t of

co sts or fe es, w h ich e v iden ce d an inten t t o ap p ea l) .3

O n the mer i t s , Schaef

feral l eged i n hi s compl ai ntthata corr ect i onal offi cer purpos eful l yopened c el l door s t o enabl e thr ee i nm at es t o as s aul thi m , and di d notr es pond w hen he s oughthel p vi a an e m er gencyi nt er com. H e furtheraverr ed thattw o other c o rre c tio n a l o f

f ice rs p a id th e in m a tes to h a rm h im a n d g a v e a n o rd e r to o p e n th e c e ll d o o rs. S c h a e f

f e r c laim e d th a t W ilso n , the p riso n su p e rin ten d e n t, ref u se d to h a n d le th is in c id e n t leg a llyw ith th e c o u rts; th a t C ro ss , the sta te p o lice su p e rv iso r, re f u se d to i nves t i gat e and pr os ecut e hi s as s ai l ant s and ans w erhi s l ett er s ; and thatV ernon, the di s tr i ctatt orney , vi s i t ed hi m aft erhe w r ot e her , butthen r efus ed t o i nves t i gat e furtherand prosecute hi s ass ai l ants . S c h a e f f e r’ s c o m p la in t f

a ils to s ta te a c la im u p o n w h ic h re lie f m a yb e g ra n te d . A b s o lu te im m u n ity a tta c h e s to a p ro s e c u to r’ s a c tio n s p e rf o rm e d in a “ q u a s i-

ju d ic ia l” ro le . G i uffr e v. B i s s el l , 31 F. 3d 1241, 1251- 52 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( ci t i ng I m bl erv. Pachtm an, 424 U . S. 409, 430- 31 ( 1976) ) . T he dec i s i on t o i ni t i at e a pr os ecut i on i s atthe cor e of a p ro se c u to r’s ju d icia l ro le. Id . It fo llo w s th a t V e rn o n is a b so lu telyim m u n e f ro m liab ili ty ar i s i ng fr om herdeci s i on nott o pr os ecut e the i nm at es and off i cer s . A nd w e have found no author i tycr eat i ng a mandat orydutyupon W i l s on orC r os s t o i nves t i gat e and pur s ue the pr os ecut i on of the i nm at es and off i cer s . See I nm at es of A t t i ca Corr ect i onal Faci l i tyv. R o c k e f e ller, 4 7 7 F .2 d 3 7 5 , 3 8 2 (2 d C ir. 1 9 7 3 ) (h o ld in g in m a tes f a iled to sta te a c laimT he M agi s tr at e J udge al s o cons i der ed w hetherSchaef fers t at ed an Ei ghth A m endment 1 c laim b a se d u p o n a f

a ilu re b yW ilso n , C ro ss , an d V e rn o n to p ro tec t h im f ro m th e a ss a u lt. W e do notr ead the compl ai ntas m aki ng s uch a c l ai m . Schaef fer ’ s compl ai ntconce rns th e lac k o f

re sp o n se to th e a ss a u lt. S c h a e f f e r m e n tio n e d a f

a ilu re to p ro tec t h im o n lyin re sp o n se to a q u e stio n in th e f o rm c o m p lain t as k in g th e re su lt o f h is re p o rt o f

th e a ss a u lt to p ri s o n a u th o ri tie s . S e e C o m p la in t a t 6 , 9 . 4 ag ains t st ate o ff

ici als fo r fa il ing to inv esti g ate o r pro sec u te civil ri g h ts violati o n s). 1 A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l dism iss th is ap p ea l pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ).