2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-9-2013

Tyrone Raeford v. Linda Williams

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-1802

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Tyrone Raeford v. Linda Williams" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 1412.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/1412
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________

No. 12-1802

_________

TYRONE RAEFORD

Appellant

v.

LINDA WILLIAMS; JOSEPH ONUOHA; ESSEX COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE;

PROBATION DIVISION, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, CHANCERY 

DIVISION, FAMILY PART OF ESSEX COUNTY SUPERIOUS COURT; FRANKLIN 

TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT; SGT. PHILLIP RIZZO; 

CRAIG R. NOVIK, Police Chief; JOHN 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 Judge: 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.

Tyrone Raeford (“Raeford”) appeals from the District Court’s grant of summary 

judgment against him on his claim that Jane Bozinovski (“Bozinovski”) violated his 

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.

1

I.

 

In August 2008 a bench warrant was issued for Raeford’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 (“Bozinovski”), who was working at the 

Probation Department desk, first sent Raeford to be processed by the Sheriff’s 

 The warrant was 

entered into the Essex County Probation Department’s Automated Child Support 

Enforcement System (“ACSES”) database. Although the Essex County Sheriff’s 

Department (“Sheriff’s Department”) was responsible for executing the warrant, its

computer system did not interface with ACSES; the 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 Sheriff’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 warranted “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 most 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 brought Raeford before a judge, who vacated 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 reinstated Raeford’s drivers license, but did not print the “Notice to 

Vacate /Amend Bench Warrant” that could have been provided to the Sheriff’s 

Department. App. at 76. 

Although Raeford’s warrant had been vacated in ACSES, it had not been vacated 

in the Sheriff’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 bench warrant. Because it was a Friday, Raeford spent the weekend in jail. On 

Monday, Raeford was transferred to Essex County Jail. On Tuesday, Bozinovski, who 

happened to be working 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 though his warrant had been vacated. She informed her supervisor, who told her to 

fill out paperwork so that Raeford could be released. Raeford was released at 11:30 pm 

on December 23, approximately twelve hours after Bozinovski realized that he was being 

improperly held in custody. 

Raeford filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Bozinovski and 

others had violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. After Raeford’s claims 

against the other defendants were either settled or dismissed, Bozinovski filed a motion 
4

for summary judgment based on qualified 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 Sheriff’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 functions from liability as long as their conduct does not violate a 

constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Curley 

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

3

Raeford alleges that Bozinovski violated his Fourth Amendment 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 based on a vacated 

warrant. Nothing 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 vacated 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 the 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. Cnty. of Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261, 274 (3d Cir. 2000) (per curiam). 

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, because 

Bozinovski’s conduct would not meet the standard for “deliberate indifference” that is

required to demonstrate a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See id. Bozinovski 

may have known about the discrepancies between ACSES and the Sheriff’s computer 

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 

insufficient to establish a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See id.

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 granting 

summary judgment in favor of Bozinovski.