2009 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 6-24-2009 

# E rns t F ord v

. C ity of P hi l a delphi a 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 . 08-1792

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " E rn s t F or d v

. C ity of P hi l a de lp hi a" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1145. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1145NOT 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. 08- 1792

___________ E RN S T F OR D, A ppel l ant v . CI TY O F PH I LA D ELPH I A ; O FFI CE R T ER RA N CE SA N D ER S;

S E RG E ANT S CO T T M UR P HY

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- cv- 00778) M agi s t r at e J udge: H onor abl e Ti m ot hyR . R i ce

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 24, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FU E N T E S and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 24, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antE r ns tFor d s eeks a new t r i al fol l ow i ng a j ur yver di ctand s ubs equent j udgm enti n favorof A ppel l ees C i t yof Phi l adel phi a ( “the C i t y ”) , O ffi cerT err anceSander s and Ser geantScot tM urphy . Fort he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e w i l l aff i r m t he j u d g me n tb e l o w. I. I n February2007, For d i ni t i at ed a c i vi l r i ght s act i on under42 U . S. C . § 1983 i n t he E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia a g a in s t th e C ity a n d tw o o f its la w e n f

o rc e m e n t o f

f ic e rs . H e al l eged thatt he off

i cer s , A ppel l ees Sander s and M urphy , r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m for p ro te s tin g p o lic e b ru ta lity, a n d th a t th e yu s e d e x c e s s iv e f o rc e w h e n e f

f e c tu a tin g h is a rr e s t. For d w as appoi nt ed couns el and perm i t t ed t o amend hi s compl ai nt . A tt he cl os e of dis cov ery , t he o ffi cers m ov ed fo r s um m aryj ud gm ent. T he D i stri ctC ou rtden i ed S and ers ’ m ot i on, and deni ed M urphy ’ s m ot i on i n par t . A four - dayj ur yt r i al fol l ow ed, cul m i nat i ng i n t h e d i s mi s s a l o f

F o r d ’ s s u r v i v i n g c l a i ms . J u d g me n twa s e n t e r e d a n d , f o l l o wi n g t wo u n s u c c e s s f

u l m o tio n s f

o r a n e w tr ia l, F o rd to o k a n a p p e a l f ro m th a t ju d g m e n t. A f ter a b rie f

in g sc h e d u le w a s is su e d a n d F o rd h a d su b m itt e d h is o p e n in g a p p e llate br i ef, A ppel l ees m oved t o di s m i s s t he appe al , ci t i ng For d’ s fai l ur e t o obt ai n and pr ovi de a t r ans cr i ptof the j ur yt r i al . For d fi l ed a r es pons e, and then moved i n bot h t he D i s t r i ct C our tand thi s C our tfora copyof the j ur yt r i al t r ans cr i ptatt he publ i c’ s expens e. T he D istri ct C o u rtd en ied F o rd’s m o ti o n ; w e d en ied A p p ell ee s’ m o ti o n to d ism iss an d F o rd’s m ot i on fora copyof the tr ans cr i pt . A ppel l ees then fi l ed thei rbr i ef, and For d fi l ed a re p ly. II.W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 1 For d es s ent i al l yr ai s es fourcl ai m s on appea l . Fi r s t , he ar gues t hat“the di ffi cul t i es 1 [t he jury ] encou nter ed in und ers t and i ng t he L aw , t he judge ’s i nn uen do s, i nsi nu at i on s, ul t i m atum and t i m e cons t r ai ntcaus ed the j ur yt o hand dow n a ver di ctt hatw as not w ith sta n d in g [ th e e v id e n c e ].” W e lib e ra llyc o n stru e th is a rg u m e n t as e n c a p su latin g b o th a cl ai m chal l engi ng t he j ur yi ns t ruct i ons and a c l ai m t hatt he ver di ctw as agai ns tt he w ei ghtof the evi dence . For d’ s r emai ni ng t w o cl ai m s cont es tan evi dent i aryrul i ng att r i al a n d t h e e f

f e c t i v e n e s s o f

h i s c o u r t - a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l t e a m. A tt he out s et , w e not e thatFor d’ s cl ai m conce r ni ng t he al l eged i neff ect i ve a ss ista n c e o f

h is c o u rt-a p p o in ted c iv il atto rn e y s is w ith o u t m e rit. T h e re is n o rig h t to eff ect i ve couns el i n a ci vi l cas e, and “a ci vi l l i t i ganti s bound byt he ac t i on ori nact i on of his at t orney . ” W al ker v. S un S hip, Inc. , 68 4 F . 2d 26 6, 26 9 (3d C i r. 19 82 ). S ee al so K u s h n e r v . W in te rt h u r S w is s In s . C o ., 6 2 0 F .2 d 4 0 4 , 4 0 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 0 ). A s to th e re m a in in g c laim s, A p p e llee s re n e w th e ir a rg u m e n t th a t F o rd ’s f a ilu re to o b tain a trial tra n sc rip t p u rsu a n t to R u le 1 0 (b ) o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

A p p e llate Pr ocedur e and Rul e 11. 1 of ourL ocal A ppel l at e R ul es i nhi bi t s ourabi l i t yt o as s es s t he m aj or i t yof hi s cl ai m s . W e agr ee. R ul e 10( b) r equi r es an appe l l antt o or dera tr ans cr i ptof the p arts of

the D istri ct C o u rtp roc ee d ing s tha t th e a p p ell an t con side rs ne ce ssary . F ail u re t o abi de byt hatR ul e perm i t s “the courtof appe al s t o actas i tcons i der s appr opr i at e, in c lu d in g d ism iss in g th e a p p e a l.” F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 (a )(2 ). S e e , e.g ., H o rn e r E q u ip . In t’l,Fort hi s r eas on, w e pr evi ous l ydecl i ned t o pr oduce a copyof the tr i al t r ans cr i ptatt he 2 p u b lic’s e x p e n se , ev e n th o u g h F o rd is 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. T h is is b e c a u se e lig ib ili tyf

o r a tra n sc rip t at p u b lic e x p e n se a lso re q u ire s a c iv il l iti g a n t to demonstr at e “thatt he appe al i s notfr i vol ous ( butpr es ent s a s ubs t ant i al ques t i on) . ” 28 U . S. C . § 753( f) . See al s o W al kerv. Peopl e Expre s s A i r l i nes , I nc. , 886 F. 2d 598, 600- 01 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). Inc . v . S ea sca p e P o o l C tr . , Inc . , 8 8 4 F . 2 d 8 9 , 9 2 -93 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). A b se n t th e trial tra n sc rip t, F o rd ’s f ili n g s o n a p p e a l ar e w h o llyin su f f icie n t to conductanym eani ngful r evi ew of hi s cl ai m s r el at ed t o t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence , evi dent i aryrul i ngs ort he j ur yi ns t ruct i ons . See, e. g. , L ePage’ s I nc. v. 3M , 324 F. 3d 141, 1 4 6 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( s e t t i n g f o r t h s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w f o rs u f f i c i e n c yc l a i m s ) . We r ecogni ze thatFor d’ s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de a c opyof the tr ans cr i pti s i n par tdue t o ourdeni al of hi s r eques tforone. N onethel es s , For d has noteven de s cr i bed the tr i al err or s as he per cei ves t hem. N orhas he expl ai ned hi s ar gum ent s bey ond vague ge ner al i zat i ons or ci t ed anyl egal author i t yforhi s pos i t i ons . I n s hor t , he has notpr ovi ded a vi abl e bas i s for u s t o q u e s t i o n t h e j u d g me n tb e l o w. 2 A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s entr yof j udgm enti n favorof A pp el l ees.