2008 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 3-20-2008 

# C r a wford v . Mi l le r 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 . 07-1388

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" C r a wfor d v . Mi l le r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1403. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1403NOT 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- 1388
M AR GAR E T H. CR AWF OR D; WI L L I AM CR AWF OR D; J AM E S F . M UR P HY,

A p p e llan ts
v. J E F F RE Y M I L L E R; S T E P HE N KR E M P AS KY; J AM E S BO CK ; CH A RL ES STA SK I EW I CZ ; RO BE RT ER D ELY ; K I RB Y CR O FT

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 05- cv- 00214) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Y vet t e K ane Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 14, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 20, 2008)

OP I NI ON
P E R C UR I AM A p p ell an ts M arg are t C raw fo rd, W il li am C raw fo rd, an d Jam es M u rph yap p ea l pro
se f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f d e f e n d a n tsA ppel l ant s w er e r epr es ent ed bycouns el befor e the D i s t r i ctC our t , butar e appe al i ng 1 p ro s e . P la in tif

f L a rh o n d a B a tz e l is n o t p a rt ic ip a tin g in th is a p p e a l. 2 Ja m e s B o c k , K irb yC ro f t, R o b e rt E rd e ly , Je f

f re yM ill e r, an d C h a rle s S tas k iew icz . T h is 1 act i on under42 U . S. C . § 1983 ar os e i n l ar ge partoutof an i nves t i gat i on byt he Penns y l vani a St at e Pol i ce ( “PSP”) i nt o t he al l eged una ut hor i zed s al e of s t at e pol i ce p ro p e rtyo n th e in ter n e t an d th e a c tio n s ta k e n b yP S P o f f ice rs d u rin g a n d a f

ter th e ir in v e stig a tio n . W e n e e d n o t re p e a t th e d e tails o f a p p e llan ts’ c laim s h e re a s th e ya re w e llknow n t o t he part i es and ar e s um m ar i zed i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s m emora ndum . For t he f o llo w in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er this app eal un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e exerci se pl enaryr evi ew overa di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or derof s um m aryj udgm ent . See K auche rv. C o u n tyo f B u ck s, 4 5 5 F . 3 d 4 1 8 , 4 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). S u m m aryjud g m en t i s p rop er if the re i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand the movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm ent as a mat t erof l aw . I d. at422- 423. A n i s s ue i s genui ne onl yi f ther e i s a s uffi ci ent evi dent i arybas i s on w hi ch a r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d fi nd fort he non- m ovi ng par t y , and a fac tual di s put e i s m at er i al onl yi f i tm i ghtaff ectt he out come of t he s ui tundergoverni ng l aw . I d. at423 ( ci t i ng A n d erso n v . L ibertyL o b b y , Inc . , 4 7 7 U . S . 2 4 2 , 2 4 8 (19 8 6 )). In conduct i ng ourr evi ew , w e vi ew t he r ecor d i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he non- m ovi ng par t i es and dr aw al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n t hei rfavor . I d. O n appea l , M ar gar etC r aw for d cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n concl udi ng3

t hatherm al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m agai ns tdefe ndant s C r oftand St as ki ew i cz w as t i m ebarr ed. T he appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons forM ar gar etC r aw for d’ s § 1983 cl ai m i s t hat governi ng per s onal i nj ur ycl ai m s i n Penns y l vani a. See W al l ace v. K at o, - - - U . S. - - - - , 127 S. C t . 1091, 1094, ( 2007) ; s ee a l s o U r rut i a v. H arr i s bur g C ount yPol i ce D ep’ t , 91 F. 3d 4 5 1 , 4 5 7 n . 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 6 ) . Th e r e f o r e , M a r g a r e tCr a wf

o r d h a d t wo y e a r s f

r o m th e t i me hercaus e of a ct i on acc rued i n w hi ch t o fi l e hercompl ai nt . See U r rut i a, 91 F. 3d at457 n. 9 . T h e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s o n m a licio u s p ro se c u tio n c laim s “ d o e s n o t b e g in to ru n u n til t he u nd erl y i ng cri m i nal pr oceed i ng s ar e t erm i nated i n p l ai nti ff’s favor. ” R ose v . B a rtle , 8 7 1 F .2 d 3 3 1 , 3 4 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t to chal l enge a concl us i on t hatt he cha r ges agai ns tM ar gar etC r aw for d w er e di s m i s s ed on J anuary28, 2003. A ccor di ngl y , M ar gar etC r aw for d w as r equi r ed t o fi l e hercompl ai ntno l at ert han J anuary28, 2005, butfai l ed t o do s o unt i l February1, 2005. A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof def endant s C r oftand St as ki ew i cz. S u m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s a lso p ro p e rlyg ra n ted in f a v o r o f d e f e n d a n t E rd e lyw ith
re sp e c t to W ill iam C ra w f o rd ’s c laim th a t E rd e lyd e p riv e d h im o f h is p ro p e rty(h is per s onal comput er ) bydamagi ng i tand r et ai ni ng i t“forno j us torpr operr eas on w i t hout d u e p ro c e ss o f

law .” S u m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s p ro p e rlye n ter e d in f a v o r o f E rd e ly b ec au se, as e x p lai n ed b ythe D istri ct C o u rt , W il li am C raw fo rd’s res p o n se to E rde ly ’s4

m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entpr ovi ded no r ecor d s uppor tforhi s pos i t i on t hatt he comput erhad bee n damaged ori m pr oper l yr et ai ned. See C el ot ex C orp. v. C atr et t , 477 U . S. 317, 324 ( 1986) ( nonm ovi ng par t ym aynotr es ton al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai ntbut
m u st “g o b ey o n d the p lead ing s an d b y[h is] o w n af fid av it s, o r bythe d ep o sit ion s, an sw ers t o int err og at ori es, and adm i ssi on s on fil e, desi gn at e speci fi c facts show i ng t hat there i s a genui ne i s s ue fort r i al . ”) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . See al s o B er ckel eyI nv. G r oup. L t d. v. C ol ki t t , 455 F. 3d 195, 201 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( “[S] um m aryj udgm enti s es s ent i al l y‘ putup or sh u t u p ’ tim e f

o r th e n o n -m o v in g p a rty : th e n o n -m o v in g p a rtym u st re b u t th e m o tio n w ith fac t s i n t he r ecor d and ca nnotr es ts ol el yon as s er t i ons m ade i n t he pl eadi ngs , l egal
m em o ran d a, or o ral argu m en t. ”) A ppel l antM urphy ’ s chal l enge t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent i n favorof def

endantB ock i s l i kew i s e w i t houtm er i t . O n appea l , M urphyar gues fort he fi r s tt i m e thatB ock vi ol at ed hi s Four t h A m endmentr i ght s beca us e B ock t ook and
re tain e d M u rp h y ’s p e rso n a l p ro p e rtyw ith o u t a w a rra n t. W e d e c lin e to a d d re ss th is
ar gum ent . See I n r e Tow erA i r , I nc. , 416 F. 3d 229, 242 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . T o t he ext ent M u rp h yis a ttem p tin g to c h a llen g e th e D istric t C o u rt’s e n tryo f su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n h is Four t eenth A m endmentdue pr oces s cl ai m , w e conc l ude thats um m aryj udgm entw as pr oper l yent er ed i n favorof B ock. I n t he D i s tr i ctC our t , M urphyar gued thatB ock had no author i t yt o deci de w ho ow ned the pr oper t yM urphyl efti n hi s offi ce a ft erhi s s us pens i on, and depr i ved M urphyof hi s pr oper t y“w i t houtdue pr oces s of l aw ” w hen B ock “c arr i edW e conc l ude thatB ock’ s act i ons w er e “r andom and unaut hor i zed” as a mat t erof 2 l aw beca us e M urphy ’ s oppos i t i on t o t he s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on fai l ed t o poi ntt o any evi dence i n t he r ecor d t hathi ghl ypl ace d PSP empl oy ees “condone d and r at i fi ed” the al l eged s t eal i ng and r et ent i on of hi s PSP m emora bi l i a. I ndeed, as s t at ed byt he D i s t r i ct C our t , M urphyat t es t ed thathe had no “ har d fac tevi dence ” t o s uppor thi s s us pi ci on t hat B o c k w a s im p ro p e rl ym o tiv a te d to ta k e h is m e m o ra b ilia f o r u s e in a P S P c o lle c tio n . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatM urphyfai l ed t o s how t hatB ock depr i ved hi m of a 3 c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t, w e n e e d n o t re a c h th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r B o c k w o u ld b e e n tit led to q u a lif ie d im m u n ity. K a u c h e r, 4 5 5 F .3 d a t 4 2 3 n . 2 . 5 aw aynum er ous i t ems of per s onal pr oper t y ” t o be us ed byt he PSP “form us eum and
m e m o ra b ili a c o llec tio n s.” E v e n a ss u m in g a rg u e n d o th a t all o f th e d isp u ted item s le f

t in M urphy ’s off

i ce i n fac tbelonge d to M urphy , and t hat he had a prope rtyi nter est i m pl i cat i ng t he due pr oces s cl aus e, no vi ol at i on of due pr oces s has occurr ed. W her e, as here, t he co m plai ned of co nd uct i s “r and om and un authori zed,” po st -depri vati on process 2 i s al l t hati s due. B r ow n v. M uhl enber g, 269 F. 3d 205 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . T he C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a pr ovi des an ade quat e pos t - depr i vat i on pr oces s for M urphy : t he j udi ci al r emedyof a c i vi l act i on forconver s i on. Fur t her , t he part i es do not di s put e thatPSP ’ s I nt ernal A ffa i r s D i vi s i on has al r eadyi nves t i gat ed a c om pl ai ntbr ought b yM u rp h ya g a in s t B o c k c o n c e rn in g th e lo s s o f o r d a m a g e to M u rp h y ’s p e rs o n a l p ro p e rt y . U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , w e conc l ude thats um m aryj udgm entw as pr oper l yent er ed
a g a i n s tM u rp h yo n h i s d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m. 3 Fi nal l y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yent er ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof d e f e n d a n t M ill e r. M u rp h yf a iled to d e m o n stra te th a t M ill e r w a s p e rso n a llyin v o lv e d w ith t he al l eged t aki ng of, and damage t o, hi s pr oper t y . See R ode v. D el l ar ci pr et e, 845 F. 2d6

1 1 9 5 , 1 2 0 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m.