2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

1-9-2013 

# T y r one R a efor d v

. Lind a W i l li a ms
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 12-1802

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou 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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" T y r one R a efor d v

. L ind a W i l l i a m s " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1412. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013/1412NO T PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________ No. 12

- 1802

_________ TYRONE RAEFORD Appellant v. LINDA W ILLIAMS; JOSEPH ONUOHA; ESSEX COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; PROBATION DIVISION, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION, FAMILY PART OF ESSEX C OUNTY SUPERIOUS COURT; FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT; SGT. PHILLIP RIZZO; CRAIG R. NOVIK, Police Chief; JO HN DOES ;

ESSEX COUNTY; SOMERSET COUNTY; ESSEX COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; JANE BOZINOVSKI

________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. No. 3

- 10

- cv - 01314) District Judg e: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan

_______ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) December 21, 2012 Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge , SLOVITER, and VANASKIE , Circuit Judges (Filed : January 9 , 2013 )

__________

OPINION

__________2 SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

T yrone Raeford (“Raeford”) appeals from the District Court’s grant of summary judgment against him on his claim that Jane Bozinov s k i (“Bozinovski”) violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights

. 1
I.
In August 2008 a bench warrant was issued for Raef ord ’s arrest after he failed to appear at a child support hearing in Essex County, New Jersey

. 2

On September 10, 2008, Raeford came to the Probation Department to address his outstanding bench warrant

. Jane Bozinovski (“ Bozinovsk i ” ), who was work ing at the Probation Department desk, first sent Raeford to be processed by the S heriff’s The warrant was entered into the Essex County Probation Department’s Automated Child Support Enforcement System (“ACSES”) database. Although the Essex Count y Sheriff’s Department (“Sheriff’s Department”) was responsible for executing the warrant, its computer system did not interface with ACSES ; t he warrant therefore needed to be entered into its system manually

. The Family Division of the Essex County Court was responsible for sending the warrant to the Sherif f’s Department.

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (4). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review of the District Court's grant of summary judgment, and we apply the same standard applicable in the District Court

. See Doe v. C.A.R.S. Prot. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 2008)

. Summary judgment is warrante d “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.

2 Because this is a motion for summary judgment, we view the facts in this case in the light mo st favorable to Raeford, the non

- moving party. See Doe , 527 F.3d at 362.3 Department. After returning, Raeford informed Bozinovski that the Sheriff’s Department could not find a warrant on file for him , even though he had asked them to check twice. Bozinovski next br ought Raeford before a judge, who vaca ted his warrant. She then entered the order vacating the warrant into ACSES and a warrant database used by the Family Division

. The computer system generated three forms; Bozinovski printed the two forms that reinst ated Raeford’s drivers license , but did not print the “Notice to
Vacate /Amend Bench Warrant” that could have been provide d to the Sheriff’s
D epartment. App. at 76. Although Raeford’s warrant had been vacated in ACSES, it had not been vacated in the Sh eriff’s Department computer system. When New Jersey police stopped Raeford for a traffic violation on Friday, December 19, 2008, they arrested him on the already vacated b ench w arrant. Because it was a Friday, Raeford spent the weekend in jail

. On
Mon day, Raeford was transferred to Essex County Jail. On Tuesday , Bozinovski, who happened to be work ing at the Probation Department , reviewed the list of people in custody who were to be brought to court and discovered that Raeford was in custody even thou gh his warrant had been vacated. She informed her supervisor, who told her to fill out paperwork so that Raeford could b e released. Raeford was released at 11:30 pm

on December 23 , approximately twelve hours after Bozinovski realized that he was being
i mprop erly held in custody. Raeford filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , alleging that Bozinov s k i and other s had violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amend ment rights. After Raeford’s claims against the other defendants were eithe r settled or dismisse d, Bozinov s k i filed a motion4 for summary judgment based on qu alified immunity. The District Court granted Bozinovski’s motion, and Raeford appealed

. II. Raeford claims that Bozinovski violated his constitutional rights by failing to ensure that the She riff’ s Department knew that his warrant was vacated and by not releasing him from custody expeditiously . Bozinovski argues that qualified immunity protects her from both claims. Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functio ns from liabil ity as long as their conduct does not vi olate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the violation

. S ee Curley v.Klem, 298 F.3d 271, 277 (3d Cir. 2002)

. 3 Raeford alleges that Bozinovski viol ated his Fourth Amend ment right to be free from unreasonable seizure by failing to secure his prompt release from custody. Bozinovksi is entitled to qualified immunity on this count because she took steps to secure Raeford’s release as soon as she realized he was in custody b ased on a vacated
warrant

. N othing in the record suggests that she could have done more to expedite Raeford’s release. Raeford also alleges that Bozinovski violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to ensure that his warrant was vac ated in the Sheriff’ s Department computer system. Bozinovski is entitled to qualified immunity on

3 Raeford’s argument that Bozinovski was performing a non

- discretionary function is meritless. See Davis v. Scherer , 468 U.S. 183, 196 n.14 (1984) (“ A law that fails to specify th e precise action that the official must take in each instance creates only discretionary authority. ”).5 the Fourth Amendment claim because she did not intend to cause Raeford’s arrest. See Berg v. C n ty
. of Allegheny , 219 F.3d 261, 274 (3d Cir. 2000) (per curia m)

. We have yet to determine whether a Fourteenth Amendment claim is appropriate when a defendant does not intentionally cause a plaintiff to be seized but is responsible for the seizure. See Berg , 219 F.3d at 274. We need not decide that issue here, be cause Bozinovsk i’s conduct would not meet the standard for “deliberate indifference” that is required to demonstrate a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See id. Bozinov s k i may have known about the discrepancies between ACSES and the Sheriff’s comp uter system , but the Sheriff’s Department was responsible for monitoring the differences between the two systems, and for checking outstanding warrants in ACSES before making arrests. Bozinovski’s conduct was, at most, negligent and was therefore insuffi cient to establish a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment

. See i d

. Because Bozinovski did not violate Raeford’s constitutional rights, she is entitled to qualified immunity

. III. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order granti ng summary judgment in favor of Bozinovski

.