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 7-8-2010 

# James D e W ees v . J eff rey H a s te 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 . 09-2804

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 ame s D e W e e s v . J eff r ey H as t e " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 990. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/990NOT 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- 2804

___________ J A M E S M . D E W E E S , A ppel l ant

v. JE F F R E Y T . H A S T E ; M A R K T E M P L E T O N ; DO M I NI CK DER OSE; DA UPH I N C OU NTY

___________ 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 N o. 1- 05- cv- 00212) D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Y vett e K ane

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay20, 2010 B efore: F U E N T E S , H A R D IM A N , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: J ul y8, 2010)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________T h e D istric t C o u rt n o ted th a t D e W e e s’ c o m p lain t ap p e a re d to ra ise b o th 1. ind ividu al an d o ff

ici al ca p ac ityclaim s ag ains t D eR o se, H aste, an d T em p let o n . It d is m is s e d th e o f

f ic ia l c a p a c ity c la im s a s d u p lic a tiv e o f th e c la im a g a in s t D a u p h in C o u n ty. D eW ees does notchal l enge the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s fi ndi ng. 2 N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge. Si nce thi s opi ni on i s w hol l yw i thoutpr ece dent i al val ue, w e w r i t e s ol el yforthe b e n e f it o f th e p a rt ie s , w h o a re f

a m ilia r w ith th e f

a c tu a l a n d p ro c e d u ra l h is to ry o f th is c a s e . 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 in f a v o r o f th e A p p e lle e s o n a ll c la im s . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. Jam es D eW ees, form er D epu tyW arden at the D aup hin C ou ntyP ri son, fi rs t al l eges thatthe t erm i nat i on of hi s empl oym entw as a r et al i at oryacti n vi ol at i on of the F irst A m e n d m e n t o f

th e U n ited S tate s C o n stitu tio n . D e W e e s a lleg e s th a t D a u p h in C o u n tya n d , in th e ir in d iv id u a l ca p a c iti e s, P riso n W a rd e n D o m in ick D e R o se , C o u n ty C om m i s s i onerJ eff

r eyH as t e, and H um an R es our ces D i r ect orM ark T empl et on el i m i nat ed hi s pos i t i on i n r et al i at i on forthr ee a ct s : D eW ees ’ pr evi ous l aw s ui tagai ns tD eR os e and D auphi n C ounty ; a r eportD eW ees m ade t o the D i s tr i ctA t t orneyaboutal l eged ove r bi l l i ng bya pr i s on contr act or ; and a l ett erD eW ees s entt o H as t e aboutal l eged
m i s appr opr i at i ons of pr i s oner s ’ funds
. H e furthercl ai m s thathi s t erm i nat i on cons t i tut es 1
a w ro n g f u l d is c h a rg e u n d e r P e n n s y lv a n ia la w . D eW ees nextal l eges thatthe D efe ndant s w i thhel d hi s fi nal pay chec k, i n vi ol at i on of hi s r i ght s t o due pr oces s and equa l pr ot ect i on underthe Four t eenth A m endmentof theI n addi t i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thati t“ca nnots aythatD efe ndant s have 2. sat i sfi ed thei r s ub st anti al bu rden of proving a n on -r et al i at orybasi s w as the b ut- for cause of Pl ai nt i ff' s l os s of hi s j ob and thatno r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d concl ude otherw i s e. ” D e W e e s v . H a ste , 6 2 0 F . S u p p . 2 d 6 2 5 , 6 3 4 (M
. D . P a. 20 0 9 ). 3 U n ited S tate s C o n stitu tio n . F in a lly , D e W e e s m a in tain s th a t th e D e f e n d a n ts’ ro les in t e r m i n a t i n g h i s e m p l o ym e n tc o n s t i tu t e c i v i l c o n s p i r a c y. O n appea l , D eW ees ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tappl i ed the w r ong s t andar d of
re v ie w to h is c la im s , th e re b yf a ilin g to m a k e re a s o n a b le in f e re n c e s o f

f a c t in h is f

a v o r. H e a lso a ss e rts th a t th e D istric t C o u rt m a d e n u m e ro u s e rro rs o f law a n d f

a c t. W e w ill b ri e f ly re v ie w e a c h c la im
. W ith re g a rd to a lleg e d F irst A m e n d m e n t re talia tio n a risin g f ro m D e W e e s’ r e p o rts of fi nanci al i s s ues atthe pr i s on, he ac know l edges i n br i efi ng thats uch a c l ai m i s pr emi s ed
u p o n a leg al de term ination that the e v en ts al lege d lyg iving ri se to retali ati o n w ere pr ot ect ed s peec h. W e do notfi nd anyerr ori n the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s l egal concl us i on that D eW ees’ report s of al l eged i m propri et i es atthe p ri son w ere notprot ect ed spee ch b ecause th e yf e ll w ith in h is e m p lo ym e n t o b lig a tio n s . G ar cet t iv. C ebal l os , 547 U
. S. 410, 421 (2006 ). A ccordi ng l y , D eW ees’ F i rs tA m end m ent r et al i at i on cl ai m st em m i ng from these
r e p o r t s c l e a r l yf

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

l a w. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d fi nd thatD eW ees pr ovi ded s uffi ci ent , al bei tpal try , evi dence t o m ake outa pr i m a fa ci e ca s e thatthe el i m i nat i on of hi s pos i t i on w as i n r et al i at i on for hi s ear l i erl aw s ui tagai ns tD eR os e and D auphi n C ounty . Y et , the D i s tr i ctC our trul ed 2D eW ees att empt ed, atthe t i m e of s um m aryj udgm ent , t o cons true hi s al l egat i on 3. th a t T e m p le to n w ith h e ld h is p a y c h e c k a s a n o th e r i n s ta n c e o f F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r e ta lia tio n . T he D i s tr i ctC our trul ed thatchar act er i zi ng thi s al l egat i on i n thi s m annerw as i ncons i s t ent w i th D eW ees ’ compl ai nt , and i tr efus ed t o cons i derthi s cl ai m i n i t s Fi r s tA m endment anal y s i s . W hi l e D eW ees att empt s t o m ake the s ame ar gum enton appea l , he does not chal l enge the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on that , i n hi s compl ai nt , the pay chec k al l egat i on r e l a t e s o n l yt o h i s a s s e r t i o n o f F o u r t e e n th Am e n d me n tv i o l a t i o n s . F o rth i s r e a s o n , we re v ie w e d it o n ly w ith in th e c o n te x t o f D e W e e s ’ F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t c la im
. D eW ees al l udes t o an equa l pr ot ect i on vi ol at i on i n hi s appel l at e br i ef, buthe does 4. n o t ch a llen g e th e D istric t C o u rt’s r e a so n in g th a t th e “ c las s-o f -o n e ” th e o ryh e a ss e rte d is notavai l abl e i n t hi s cont extt o gr ound an equa l pr ot ect i on cl ai m . W e, ther efor e, r egar d an appea l of D eW ees ’ equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m as w ai ved. 4 that the record did no tsupp ortanyreas on able i nference thatei ther T em plet on or D eR ose had anyper s onal i nvol vementi n t he D auphi n C ountySal aryB oar d’ s deci s i on t o cut D eW ees ’ pos i t i on: a r equi s i t e foras s ert i ng a ci vi l r i ght s cl ai m . W i th r egar d t o H as t e, t he D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t, as a m e m b e r o f th e D a u p h in C o u n tyS a lar yB o a rd , h is v o te to
e lim in a te th e D e p u tyW a rd e n p o sitio n w a s a leg isla tiv e a c t th a t en tit les H a ste to a b so lu te i m m uni ty . O n thes e bas es , as t o D eW ees ’ Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m s ar i s i ng fr om the l aw s ui t , the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof al l of the D e f e n d a n ts. U p o n o u r o w n re v iew , w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt. 3 D eW ees nex tassert s Fo urt eenth A m end m ent equal pr otect i on and du e process cl ai m s em anati ng from his al l egati on that the D efen dan t s unjust l yw i thh el d h i s l ast pay chec k. T he D efe ndant s r es pond thatthe che ck w as pr oper l ykeptback pe ndi ng

4 D e W e e s’ c o m p lian c e w ith in stru c tio n s to re tu rn item s re g a rd e d a s p riso n p ro p e rty . W h ile not i ng a pos s i bl e fa ctual di s put e overw hethercert ai n i t ems w er e ac tual l yr eturned, the5

D i s tr i ctC our trul ed thatD eW ees ’ al l egat i on s i m pl ydoes nots uppor ta cl ai m of a F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n b e c a u se th e c o n d u c t in q u e stio n p lain ly does nots hock the cons ci ence , w hi ch i s nece s s aryt o s us t ai n s uch a c l ai m . W e agr ee. R egar di ng D eW ees ’ ci vi l cons pi r acycl ai m , the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatthe utt er abs ence of anydi r ectevi dence thatthe D efe ndant s had anyj oi ntpl an t o tr eatD eW ees
u n ju s tly n e c e s s ita te d a d is m is s a l o f th is c la im . A g a in , u p o n o u r o w n re v ie w , w e a g re e . D eW ees’ fi nal cl ai m i s, essent i al l y , that the sam e facts groun ding his F i rs t A m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m s al s o s uppor tan al l egat i on of w r ongful di s char ge under Penns y l vani a l aw . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatD auphi n C ountyhad governm ent al im m u n ityf

ro m th e w ro n g f

u l d isc h a rg e su it. It a lso g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th is claim in f

av o r of T em p let o n an d D eR o se b ec au se o f th e c o m p let e a b sen ce o f re co rd
e v i d e n c e l i n k i n g th e m t o th e S a l a r y B o a r d ’ s v o t e t o e l i m i n a t e D e W e e s ’ p o s i t i o n . F i n a l l y, as t o d efen dan tH ast e, the D i stri ctC ou rtdis m i ssed the w rongf ul di scharge cl ai m against hi m beca us e, acc or di ng t o Penns y l vani a dec i s i onal l aw , a s i ngl e comm i s s i onercannotbe h e ld lia b le f

o r t h e a c tio n s o f

a n e n tir e b o a rd . W e d o n o t f in d a n ye rr o r i n th e s e h o ld in g s . Foral l of thes e r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant i ng
sum m aryj ud gm ent i n fav or of t he D efen dan t s.