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 11-13-2009 

# J o se Pe re z v . Mich a el Georgeli s 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 . 08-4420

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 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 os e P e r ez v

. Mich a el Ge org el i s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 260. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/260NOT 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- 4420

___________ J OSE M I GU EL PE REZ, A ppel l ant v. M IC H A E L A . G E O R G E L IS ; DONAL D R . T OT ANO; CHERYL OND ECHE CK

_______________________________ 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 . C i vi l N o. 07- cv- 03539) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn R . Padova

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

N ovember13, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , H A R D I M A N and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: N ovember13, 2009)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C UR I AM A p p e llan t Jo se M ig u e l P e re z , a P e n n sy lv a n ia s tate p riso n e r, f iled a c iv il righ ts ac ti o n p u rsua n t t o 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 in U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern2

D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. H e cl ai m ed thatL anca s t erC ountyC our tof C om m on Pl eas J udge M i chae l A . G eor gel i s ( now r et i r ed) , form erL anca s t erC ountyD i s tr i ctA t t orney D o n a ld R . T o tar o , an d f o rm e r A ss ista n t D istric t A tto rn e yC h e ry l O n d e c h e c k v io late d h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts d u rin g h is 1 9 9 2 trial w h e n a n in f o rm a n t tes tifie d a g a in st h im in excha nge for“ec onom i c bene fi t s . ” I n hi s ci vi l r i ght s compl ai nt , Per ez s oughta hea r i ng pur s uantt o Fr anks v. D el aw ar e, 438 U . S. 154 ( 1974) ( hear i ng r equi r ed w her e def endant s how s thatfal s e s t at ementw as i ncl uded i n s ear ch w arr antaff i davi t , i f fa l s e s t at ementw as n e c e s s a ry to f

in d in g o f p ro b a b le c a u s e ). T he def endant s m oved t o di s m i s s the compl ai nt . I n an or derent er ed on J ul y22, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our t , not i ng thatthe mot i on t o di s m i s s w as unoppos ed, gr ant ed the defe ndant s ’ m ot i on and di s m i s s ed the compl ai nton the bas i s of H eck v. H um phr ey , 512 U . S. 477 ( 1994) , beca us e s ucce s s i n the ac t i on w oul d cal l i nt o ques t i on the val i di tyof P e re z ’s c o n v ictio n . T h e c o u rt f o u n d th a t P e re z h a d n o t m e t H e c k ’s r e q u ire m e n t th a t h is con vict i on be inval i dated throug h av ai l able s t at e or federal rem edies . Per ez f i l ed a t i m el ym ot i on forr econs i der at i on, i n w hi ch he a s s ert ed thathe had n o t h a d a n o p p o rtu n ityto re sp o n d in o p p o sitio n to th e m o tio n to d ism iss th ro u g h n o f a u lt o f h is o w n . T h e D istric t C o u rt th e n g a v e P e re z th e o p p o rtu n ityto su b m it b rie f s in oppos i t i on t o t he mot i on. Fol l ow i ng the s ubm i s s i on of the br i efs , the D i s tr i ctC our t , i n an o rde r en tered o n O ctob er 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , d en ied P ere z’s m o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n . T h e c o u rt det erm i ned thatther e w as no err ori n i t s or i gi nal deci s i on and r ej ect ed Per ez’ s ar gum ent3

thathi s m er e r eques tfora Fr anks hear i ng w oul d notcal l the val i di tyof hi s convi ct i on i nt o ques t i on. T he courtexpl ai ned: “the hea r i ng that[Per ez] r eques t s i s a forum i n w hi ch he w ou l d p rove t hat hi s conv i ct i on w as i nv al i d b ecause the gov ernm ent pr esent ed fa l se and mi s l eadi ng t es t i m onyagai ns thi m ata s uppr es s i on hear i ng and attr i al . ” The D i s tr i ct C our tdi d notagr ee thatB r adl eyv. Pr i or , 305 F. 3d 1287 ( 11th C i r . 2002) , the ca s e on w hi ch Per ez r el i ed, di ct at ed a f i ndi ng thatH eck di d notbarthe s ui tbeca us e B r adl ey i nv olved on l ythe p roducti on of D N A evidence fo r t est i ng . P erez appeals . W e w il l aff

irm . W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . A stat e p ri so n er’s se c tio n 1 9 8 3 a c tio n is b a rre d , n o m a tter th e re lief so u g h t, i f

su c c e ss in th a t ac tio n w o u ld ne c e s s a r i l yde mons tr a t e the i nv a l i di tyof hi s c on vi c t i on . W i l ki ns on v. D ot s on , 54 4 U. S. 7 4 , 8 1 - 8 2 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ( c i t i n g He c k , 5 1 2 U. S . a t4 8 6 - 8 7 ) . He c k wa s b a s e d o n th e S u p r e me C o u rt ’s d e s ir e to p re v e n t p a ra lle l liti g a tio n o v e r t h e is s u e s o f p ro b a b le c a u s e a n d g u ilt. 512 U . S. at484. T he C our ts oughtt o pr eventthe pos s i bi l i tyof tw o confl i ct i ng r es ol ut i ons ar i s i ng outof the s ame suc ces s ful pr os ecut i on, and pr ecl ude a c onvi ct ed c rim in a l d e f

e n d a n t f ro m c o llate ra llya ttac k in g h is c o n v ictio n th ro u g h th e v e h icle o f a c iv il s ui t . See i d. T her efor e, as a pr er equi s i t e t o a ci vi l s ui t , the C our thel d thata pl ai nt i ff m u st p ro v e th a t h is c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e h a v e b e e n re v e rse d o n d ire c t ap p e a l, expunged byexec ut i ve or der , decl ar ed i nval i d bya s t at e tr i bunal author i zed t o m ake s uch a det erm i nat i on, orcal l ed i nt o ques t i on bya fe der al court ’ s i s s uance of a w r i tof habe as corpus . See i d. at486- 87. A cl ai m bear i ng the nec es s aryr el at i ons hi p t o a convi ct i on orT he def endant s as s ert ed i n t hei rm ot i on t o di s m i s s thatthe Penns y l vani a Super i or 1 C ou rtaffirm ed o n M ay2, 19 94 . P erez fi l ed thr ee st at e po st -convict i on peti t i on s, the las t o f w h ich w a s f

iled o n N o v e m b e r 3 , 2 0 0 5 , an d a ll o f th e p e tit io n s w e re u n su c c e ss f u l. 4 s ent ence thathas notbeen i nval i dat ed i s notcogni zabl e. See i d. at487. T h e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd e ter m in e d th a t H e c k a p p lies to b a r P e re z ’s c iv il righ ts act i on. H e w as convi ct ed fol l ow i ng a j urytr i al of thr ee c ount s of pos s es s i on w i th i nt ent t o di s tr i but e coc ai ne and one countof del i veryof coc ai ne. J udge G eor gel i s s ent ence d hi m t o a t ot al t erm of i m pr i s onm entof 24 t o 80 y ear s i m pr i s onm ent . T he j udgm entof con vict i on and sent ence h as neve r been i nv al i dated, and P erez does no tsugg est otherw i s e. B r adl ey , 305 F. 3d 1287, not es thats ucce s s i n a s ect i on 1983 act i on s eeki ng

1 the pr oduct i on of evi dence forD N A t es t i ng does notnece s s ar i l ydemonstr at e oreven im p lyth a t a c o n v ictio n is in v a lid b e c a u se it i s n o t k n o w n w h e th e r th e e v id e n c e is excul pat oryori ncul pat ory , oreven l os t . T her efor e, w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tt hat B ra d ley i s in a p p o site . P e re z ’s c h a llen g e to th e tru th f u ln e ss o f a n in f o rm a n t’s s tate m e n ts n ec essa ri lyca ll s into q u esti o n the v ali d ityo f h is co n v ict ion , b ec au se th e inf o rm an t’ s s t at ement s i n Per ez’ s cas e have al r eadybeen e s t abl i s hed t o be i ncul pat ory . C f. W i l ki ns on, 544 U . S. at82 ( s ect i on 1983 r emai ns avai l abl e forpr ocedur al chal l enges w h ere su cc ess in ac ti o n w o u ld n o t nec essa ri lysp ell im m ed iat e o r spe ed ier rel ea se). W e w i l l aff

i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng the def endant s ’ m ot i on and d ism iss in g th e c o m p lain t. T h e a p p e llee s’ m o tio n to b e e x c u se d f ro m f ili n g a b rie f

is gr ant ed.