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 1-15-2009 

# H ann an v . 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 . 07-4548

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 " H ann an v . P hi l a de lp hi a" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2027. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/2027NOT 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- 4548

____________ J E F F E RY HANNA N, A ppel l ee,

v. CI T Y OF P HI L ADE L P HI A; S YL VE S T E R J OHNS ON; KAR E N B I RD ;

W IL L IA M B L A C K B U R N , S u e d in d iv id u a llya n d in o f f icia l ca p a c ity , h e ld liab le jo in tlya n d se v e ra lly

Sy l ves t erJ ohns on, A ppel l ant

____________ 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 05- cv- 02863) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C ynthi a M . R ufe

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

J anuary6, 2009 B e f o re : C H A G A R E S , H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges a nd G A RB I S, * D is tr i ct Judge ( Fi l ed: J anuary15, 2009 ) *T he H onor abl e M arvi n J . G arbi s , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge forD i s t r i ctof M a ryla n d , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .2 ____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . P h il ad elph ia P o li ce C o m m issi o n er S y lves ter Joh n so n ap p ea ls th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s deni al of hi s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on s eeki ng qual i fi ed i m m uni tyi n a s ui tbr oughtby O ffi cer J efferyH ann an all eging t hat J oh nson , am on g o t hers, viol at ed h i s Fir st A m endmentpet i t i on r i ght s . W e fi nd thatH annan w as notengage d i n pr ot ect ed pet i t i on a c tiv itya n d Jo h n so n d id n o t v io late c lea rlye sta b lish e d law . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill r ever s e. I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e re c ite o n lyth e f a c ts es s ent i al t o ourdeci s i on. T he Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce D epart m entbr oughtdi s ci pl i narychar ges agai ns tH annan forconductunbecomi ng a pol i ce of fi cerfol l ow i ng an i nci dentata s t at ew i de tr ai ni ng aca demy . U pon bei ng pr es ent ed w i t h t he cha r ges bythe C har gi ng U ni tof the D epart m ent ’ s Pol i ce Boar d of I nqui r y( PB I ) , H annan w as i ns t ruct ed t o s i gn “gui l t y ” or

“ n o t g u ilty,” o r e ls e a g re e to a tr a n s f e r o u t o f h is u n it, th e e lite N a rc o tic s S tr ik e F o rc e . H an n an ch o se to sign the c h arg es “ n o t gu il ty ” a n d req u ested a h ea ri n g b ef o re the P B I. U n d e r th e D e p a rtm e n t’s d isc ip lin a rysc h e m e , the P B I h a s a d v iso rya u th o ritya n d it r ecomm ends t o t he Pol i ce Com m i s s i onerw hetheroffi cer s s houl d be di s ci pl i ned orT he tr ans ferand s us pens i on w er e l at erover turned byan arbi t r at oraft erH annan 1 f iled a g rie v a n c e p u rsu a n t to th e D e p a rtm e n t’s C o llec tiv e B a rg a in in g A g re e m e n t. H a n n a n d o e s n o t co n tes t th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t to 2 John son an d the ot her defen dan t s on h i s ot her cl ai m s. 3 p en ali ze d . T h e P o li ce C o m m issi o n er the n d ec ides w h ethe r t o ac ce p t or reject th e P B I’s rec o m m en d ati o n . F u rth er, th e P B I rev iew is no t a m an d atoryp art of the d isci p li n ary p roc ess; the C o m m issi o n er c an take d ir ec t acti o n w ith o u t using the P B I. H e re , th e P B I u n a n im o u s ly v o te d to f in d H a n n a n “ n o t g u ilty” o f th e c h a rg e . N o n ethe less, C o m m issi o n er Jo h n so n ex erc ised h is au tho ri tyto d ep art fro m the P B I’s r ecomm endat i on byt r ans ferr i ng H annan outof the N ar cot i cs St r i ke For ce a nd s us pendi ng h i m f o r1 5 d a ys w i t h o u tp a y. 1 H annan a l l eges t hatJ ohns on di s ci pl i ned hi m m or e har s hl ybeca us e he pl eade d “not gui l t y ” and opt ed t o chal l enge the cha r ges agai ns thi m befor e the PB I . H annan s ued the C i t yof Phi l adel phi a and va r i ous i ndi vi dual defe ndant s al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of s t at e and fede r al l aw . D efe ndant s m oved fors um m aryj udgm entand the onl ycl ai m thats ur vi ved w as H annan’ s Fi r s tA m endmentPet i t i on C l aus e cl ai m agai ns tJ ohns on. J ohns on fi l ed a 2 M o ti o n fo r R ec o n side rati o n o r, in the A lt ern ati v e, R en ew ed M o ti o n fo r S u m m ary Ju d g m e n t, w h ich th e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied . Jo h n so n n o w b rin g s th is in ter lo c u to rya p p e a l. II. W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overa deni al of s um m aryj udgm entbas ed on a l ack of q u a lif ie d im m u n ity p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d th e c o lla te ra l o rd e r d o c tr in e .H annan di s put es ourj ur i s di ct i on, ar gui ng thatthe col l at er al or derdoctr i ne does 3 notappl yt o a deni al of qual i fi ed i m m uni t yatthe s um m aryj udgm ents t age t o t he ext ent t hatt he deni al tur ns on ques t i ons of fa ct , notl aw . H ow ever , J ohns on does notdi s put e the fac t s i n t hi s cas e. I ns t ead, J ohns on ar gues thateven i f he t ook an adve r s e empl oym ent a c tio n a g a in st H a n n a n d u e to h is p a rticip a tio n in th e P B I p ro c e ss , itw a s n o t ac tio n a b le b e c a u se H a n n a n ’s p a rticip a tio n in th e P B I p ro c e ss w a s n o t p ro tec ted p e tit io n a c tiv ity u n d er the F ir st A m en d m en t. Jo h n so n ’s m o ti v e – w h ich is a f ac tual q u esti o n – is th ere fo re i m m at er i al . A cce pt i ng t he fa ct s as gi ven, w e mustdeci de i f thos e fa ct s s how a vi ol at i on o f “ c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d ” la w . Johns on v. Jones , 5 1 5 U .S . 3 0 4 , 3 1 5 (1 9 9 5 ); W alkerv. H orn , 286 F. 3d 705, 707 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W e di s agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s cont ent i on t hatw hatamount s t o a pet i t i on underthe Pet i t i on C l aus e i s a fa ct - i nt ens i ve ana l y s i s . T he ques t i on of w hetherpar t i cul arconducti s pr ot ect ed bythe Fi r s tA m endmenti s a l egal m a tte r w h ic h is a p p ro p ri a te f o r o u r i n te rl o c u to ry re v ie w . S e e Mitch e ll v. Fo rs y th , 472 U . S. 511, 527- 28. 4 Schi eberv. C i t

y of P hi l adel phi a, 320 F. 3d 409, 415 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . I n r evi ew i ng a deni al 3 of sum m aryj ud gm ent on qu al i fi ed im m un i t ygroun ds, w e view the fa ct s i n the l i gh tm ost f a v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . Ko p e c v . T a te , 361 F. 3d 772, 775 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . O ur re v ie w is p le n a ry. E ddy v. V . I . W at er& Pow erA uth. , 2 5 6 F . 3 d 2 0 4 , 2 0 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). A c o u r tru l i n g u p o n a q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y i s s u e m u s tu n d e r t a k e a tw o - s t e p i n q u i r y: ( 1) w hethera cons t i tut i onal r i ghtw oul d have be en vi ol at ed on the fa ct s al l eged; and ( 2) w h e th e r th a t co n stitu tio n a l rig h t w a s “ c lea rlye sta b lish e d ” su c h th a t g ra n tin g im m u n ity w o u ld b e im p ro p e r. Sa u c ierv . Ka tz , 5 3 3 U .S . 1 9 4 , 2 0 1 (2 0 0 1 ); D oe v. G r oody , 361 F. 3d 2 3 2 , 2 3 7 -38 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A. T h e F irst A m e n d m e n t, ap p lied to th e sta tes th ro u g h th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t, p ro v id e s th a t “C o n g re ss sh a ll m a k e n o law . . . ab rid g in g . . . the rig h t o f th e p e o p le . . . t oFor akerw as deci ded j us tday s aft erthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i ni t i al s um m aryj udgm ent 4 deni al and s erved as t he bas i s forJ ohns on’ s M ot i on forR econs i der at i on. 5 pe t i t i on t he go ve r nmen tfo ra r e dr e s s of gr i e va nc e s . ” U . S. C ONST . amend. I . H annan as s er t s t hatpl eadi ng “notgui l t y ” t o t he di s ci pl i narychar ges befor e the PB I cons t i tut ed a pet i t i on t hatw as pr ot ect ed undert he Fi r s tA m endment . W e di s agr ee. W e have hel d t hatl aw s ui t s and gr i evanc es di r ect ed ata governm entempl oy eror p u b li c o ff

ici als w h ich in v o k e the fo rm al m ec h an ism fo r th e re d ress o f g ri ev an ce s are pr ot ect ed pet i t i ons undert he Fi r s tA m endment , even w her e theyonl yaddr es s m att er s of p ri v a te c o n c e rn . San F i l i ppo v. B ongi ovanni , 3 0 F .3 d 4 2 4 , 4 3 9 -4 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). In th is cas e, how ever , t he C har gi ng U ni tbr oughtform al di s ci pl i narychar ges agai ns tH annan a nd pr es ent ed them t o hi m w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o ei t her“pl ead gui l t yand w ai ve a he ar i ng” or “pl ead notgui l t yand r eques ta hea r i ng. ” H annan w as m er el ya r es pons i ve part y ; the pr oces s w as i nvoked byt he C har gi ng U ni t , a componentof the PB I . H annan di d not , as h e a lleg e s, in iti a te o r in v o k e th e P B I p ro c e ss ; h e w a s o rd e re d to c o o p e ra te a n d h is compel l ed pl ea doe s notfal l w i t hi n the cons t i tut i onal pr ot ect i ons forpet i t i ons t o t he g o v e rn m e n t. See Forakerv. C haf f i nch , 5 0 1 F . 3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). 4 T he D epart m entw as not“r equi r ed t o r ecogni ze a s a ‘ pet i t i on’ w hat everpart i cul ar c o m m u n ic a tio n is s o c h a ra c te ri z e d ” b yH a n n a n . San F i l i ppo , 30 F. 3d at442. T he D istric t C o u rt e rre d w h e n it co n f late d a d u e p ro c e ss rig h t to a n a m e -c lea rin g h e a rin g w ith pet i t i on act i vi t yundert he Fi r s tA m endment . H annan mayhave ha d a due pr oces s r i ght6

undert he Four t eenth A m endmentt o cl earhi s name fol l ow i ng the i m pos i t i on of di s ci pl i ne; butt he r i ghtt o cl earone’ s name i s s at i s fi ed bythe form al gr i evanc e and arbi t r at i on pr ocedur es es t abl i s hed bythe D epart m ent , notbythe hea r i ng t o w hi ch H annan w as for ced t o r es pond. Pl eadi ng notgui l t yt o a PB I char ge ca nnot , as a mat t erof l aw , cons t i tut e a pe t i t i on forr edr es s of gr i evanc es undert he Fi r s tA m endment . T o gai n pr ot ect i on underthe Pet i t i on C l aus e, t he ac t i on m us tbe i ni t i at ed bythe ci t i zen. H er e, H annan’ s pl ea w as m ade unde rgovernm entcompul s i on, w hi ch i s i ncons i s t entw i t h t he bas i c pr i nci pl e of f re e d o m u n d e rl y in g th e P e titio n C la u s e . See Foraker , 501 F. 3d at238. T her efor e, H annan c annotes t abl i s h t hatt he conduc tw hi ch tr i gger ed hi s r et al i at orydi s char ge w as p ro tec ted u n d e r th e F irst A m e n d m e n t an d Jo h n so n d id n o t v io late h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts ( Sa ucier step o n e). B. J ohns on al s o pr evai l s ats t ep tw o of the Sa ucier i nqui r y . E ven i f pl eadi ng not gui l t yi n a PB I pr ocee di ng cons t i tut ed pr ot ect ed pet i t i on act i vi t y , w e ca nnots aythatt he la w is c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d o n th a t p o in t. See Sauc i er , 533 U . S. at201. Q u a lifie d im m u n ityo p e ra tes “ to e n su re th a t b e f o re th e ya re su b

jec ted to su it, offi cer s ar e on not i ce thei rconducti s unl aw ful . ” H ope v. P el

z er , 536 U . S. 730, 739 (2 0 0 2 ). T h e law re g a rd in g H a n n a n ’s p e tit io n w a s n o t “s u f f icie n tlyc lea r th a t a r e a so n a b le o f f ic ia l w o u ld u n d e rs ta n d th a t w h a t h e is d o in g ” v io la te d a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t. A nders on7

v. C r ei ght on , 4 8 3 U .S . 6 3 5 , 6 4 0 (1 9 8 7 ). W h e re th e re is a “ leg iti m a te q u e stio n ” a s to w hetherconductvi ol at es t he C ons t i tut i on, i tcannotbe s ai d t hats uch conduc tvi ol at es c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d la w . Mitch e ll , 472 U . S. at535 n. 12. E ven i f J ohns on’ s act i ons had been unl aw ful – and w e have found thattheyw er e not– t hatunl aw ful nes s w as not a p p a re n t in lig h t o f

p re e x is tin g la w . See Anders on , 483 U . S. at640. B eca us e J ohns on d id n o t v io la te “ c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d la w o f w h ic h a re a s o n a b le p e rs o n w o u ld h a v e k n o w n ,” h e s h o u ld h a v e b e e n g ra n te d q u a lif ie d im m u n ity. H

a rlo w v . F itzg e ra ld , 457 U . S. 800, 8 1 8 (19 8 2 ). III . In sum , John son p revai l s for tw o indepe nd ent r easons: (1) H ann an’s r espon se does notcons t i tut e pr ot ect ed pet i t i on act i vi t yunderthe Fi r s tA m endment ; and ( 2) the l aw i s not“cl ear l yes t abl i s hed” on thatpoi nts uch thatJ ohns on s houl d be deni ed qual i fi ed i m m uni t y . W e w i l l r ever s e the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tand r emand t he ca s e fort he entr yof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof C om m i s s i onerJ ohns on.