2006 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 3-9-2006 

# Alb e r t v . S ch war t z 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 . 05-4824

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_2006

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 2006 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 " Albe r t v . S ch war tz " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1461. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1461CP S - 1 2 8 NOT 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 . 05- 4824

________________ CORNEL I US AL EXANDER ALBE RT A p p e llan t, v. M I CH A EL SC H W A RT Z, FRA N K O ’ N EI LL, M A RY H O LM ES, J O H N H U G H ES, DONAL D E . BA I N, I I I , E DWARD J . GAL L ANT , I I I , J E F F RE Y C . GR I Z Z L E , L YNN M ON AH AN , PETE R POLLI CE, J EAN M I TCH ELL, M AR K C EDR ON E a n d KEI TH Z UR I NS KY

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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 v. N o. 99- cv- 02537) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak

_______________________________________ S u b mi t t e d F o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) February16, 2006 Be f o r e : BA RRY , SM I TH A ND NY GA AR D, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed M ar ch 9, 2006) OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM C ornel i us A l bertappea l s fr om the j udgm entent er ed i n favorof the D efe ndant s and th e o rd e r d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o r re lief f ro m ju d g m e n t. B e c a u se w e d e ter m in e th a t h isB ec au se P lai n ti ff d o es n o t app ea l th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er g ran ti n g su m m ary 1 ju d g m e n t a s to C o u n t X , w e w ill n o t d is c u s s th is c la im in th is O p in io n . A l berts oughtr el i ef pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 60( b) r egar di ng t he 2 O r derof the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s i ng C l ai m s I , I I , I I I , V , V I , V I I and V I I I as w el l as t he gr ant i ng of s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the D efe ndant s on C l ai m I X . H e cl ai m ed that the D efe ndant s comm i t t ed a f r aud on the court , thatthe M agi s tr at e J udge abus ed her di s cr et i on w i th s om e of he rdi s coveryrul i ngs and thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s M ar ch 29, 2002 O r derw as no l ongerequi t abl e i n l i ghtof the purpor t ed fa ctual m i s r epr es ent at i ons upon w h ic h its d e c is io n w a s b a s e d . 2 ap p ea l l ac k s arg u ab le m erit , w e w il l dism iss i t un d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). A lb e rt ’s c la im s a ri s e f

ro m a v e h ic le s to p a n d s e a rc h o n M a y2 7 , 1 9 9 7 . Sur vei l l ance w as conduct ed of A l bertw hi l e he w as ata hot el . Suspi ci ous act i vi tyw as o b serv ed an d this l ed to the stop an d sea rch o f th e v eh icl e. B ef o re h is tri al, A lbert u n s u c c e s s f

u l l y a t t e m p t e d t o s u p p r e s s th e e v i d e n c e f o u n d i n th e v e h i c l e . U l t i m a t e l y, A lbert w as c o n v ict ed o f c red itca rd f rau d an d u sing co u n terfeiti n g d ev ices. A lbert a p p e a l e d a n d th i s Co u r ta f f i r me d th e j u d g me n ta n d c o n v i c t i o n , r e j e c t i n g Al b e r t ’ s c l a i ms that the D istri ct C o u rterred in f ail ing to su p p ress the ev iden ce seize d in the v eh icl e. In M ar ch of 1999, A l bertfi l ed thi s ci vi l r i ght s act i on i n the East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, ra is in g te n c la im s , m o s t o f w h ic h a re b a s e d o n th e s e a rc h a n d s e iz u re o f h is v e h ic le . C l ai m s I , I I , I I I , V , V I , V I I and V I I I w er e di s m i s s ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our tfor fai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m . Sum m aryj udgm entw as gr ant ed i n favorof the D efe ndant s on 1 C l ai m s I V and I X . Fur therm or e, A l bert ’ s M ot i on forR el i ef f i l ed pur s uantt o R ul e 60( b) w as deni ed. A l bertt i m el yappea l ed. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 4( a) ( 1) ( B ) . W e gr ant ed

2 A l bert ’s app l i cat i on t o ap peal i n fo rm a pau peri s.A l bertas s ert ed thatthe D efe ndant s i m pr oper l yi nqui r ed i nt o hi s paym entand 3 acc om m odat i ons atthe hot el , obs erved A l bertw hi l e conduc t i ng s ur vei l l ance atthe hot el p a rk in g lo t, ru n n in g h is lic e n s e p la te n u m b e r a n d c h e c k in g h is c ri m in a l h is to ry. 3 O urr evi ew i s pl enary . See Sant i ago v. G M A C M or t g. G r oup, I nc. , 417 F. 3d 384, 3 8 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 )(m o ti o n to d ism iss) ; M cG ree v eyv . S tou p , 4 1 3 F . 3 d 3 5 9 , 3 6 3 (3d C ir . 20 05 )( m oti on for sum m aryj ud gm ent) . In deci ding a m oti on t o d i sm i ss, a cou rtm ust det erm i ne w hetherthe partym aki ng the cl ai m w oul d be ent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde ranys etof fac t s thatcoul d be es t abl i s hed i n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m . See H i s hon v. K i ng & Spal di ng, 467 U . S. 69, 73 ( 1984) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s pr operw hen, vi ew i ng the evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he non- m ovant , ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tand the m o v in g p a rt yis e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . S e e S a ld a n a v . K M a rt C o rp ., 2 6 0 F .3 d 2 2 8 , 2 3 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); F ED . R. C IV . P. 56( c) . W e r evi ew the deni al of a 60( b) m ot i on forabus e of di s cr et i on; how ever , t o the ext entthatthe mot i on i s bei ng br ought pur s uantt o R ul e 60( b) ( 4) , ourr evi ew i s pl enary . See A hm ed v. D r agovi ch, 297 F. 3d 201, 2 0 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); s e e a ls o P a g e v . S c h w e ik e r, 7 8 6 F .2 d 1 5 0 , 1 5 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). Cl a i m I o f

th e Co mp l a i n twa s p r o p e r l yd i s mi s s e d f o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m. As expl ai ned bythe D i s tr i ctC our t , none of the ac t i ons as s ert ed cons t i tut es an i nvas i on of pr i va c ys ub

j e c tt o p r ot e c t i on un de rthe Cons t i tut i on . Se e K a t z v. U ni t e d St a t e s , 38 9 U. S. 3 3 4 7 , 3 5 1 (1 9 6 7 ). C l ai m s I I , I I I , V and V I w er e pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed bas ed upon the doctr i ne of col l at er al es t oppel . A l bertas s ert ed D ue Pr oces s and Four th A m endmentcl ai m s ar i s i ng4

f ro m D e f e n d a n ts ’ o b ta in in g th e s e a rc h w a rr a n t a n d th e irs u b s e q u e n t s e a rc h o f h is v e h ic le . D efe ndant s i n a Sect i on 1983 act i on can a s s ertcol l at er al es t oppel as a def ens e w her e the pl ai nt i ff i s att empt i ng t o r ai s e i s s ues he pr evi ous l yr ai s ed i n a cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng. See A n ela v . C ityo f W il d w o o d , 7 9 0 F . 2 d 1 0 6 3 , 1 0 6 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). Itis cl ea r th at A lbert had a f ul l and fa i roppor tuni tyt o l i t i gat e the cons t i tut i onal i s s ues he as s ert s w i th r es pect to th e s e a rc h w a rr a n t a n d th e s e a rc h o f h is v e h ic le d u ri n g h is f e d e ra l c ri m in a l p ro c e e d in g . T h e r e f o r e , h e wa s e s t o p p e d f

r o m r a i s i n g th e s e c l a i ms a g a i n i n th i s a c t i o n . S e e i d . As e x p lain e d b yth e D istric t C o u rt, A lb e rt a lso is e sto p p e d f ro m c laim in g th a t th e D e f e n d a n ts vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s byfai l i ng t o r eportvi ol at i ons of hi s r i ght s att endantt o the s ear ch (C la im V II ). I n C l ai m V I I I , A l bertal l eged thatD efe ndant s Pol l i ce a nd M i t chel l knew of and fai l ed t o r eportfal s e i nform at i on thatw as s ubm i t t ed as evi dence . A pl ai nt i ff s eeki ng declar at oryrel i ef un der Sec t i on 19 83 for harm caused byact i on s w ho se unlaw fulness w oul d r endera convi ct i on ors ent ence i nval i d “mustpr ove thatthe convi ct i on ors ent ence w a s re v e rse d o n d ire c t ap p e a l, ex p u n g e d b ye x e c u tiv e o rd e r, d e c lar e d in v a lid b ya sta te tr i bunal author i zed t o m ake s uch 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 . ” H eck v. H um phr ey , 512 U . S. 486- 87 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ; s e e a l s o Ed wa r d s v . Ba l i s o k , 5 2 0 U. S . 6 4 1 ( 1 9 9 7 ) ( e x t e n d i n g He c k t o c l a i ms s eeki ng decl ar at oryr el i ef) . A j udgm enti n favorof A l berton thi s cl ai m w oul d have im p lied th e in v a lid ityo f h is c o n v ictio n o r se n ten c e . T h e re f o re , the c laim w a s p ro p e rly5

d is m is s e d . S u m m a ryju d g m e n t p ro p e rlyw a s g ra n ted w ith re sp e c t to C laim s IV a n d IX . A s to C laim IV , itw a s d e ter m in e d a f ter so m e d isc o v e ryth a t H o lm e s w a s n o t p e rso n a lly i nvol ved i n t he s ear ch of A l bert ’ s vehi cl e. I n C l ai m I X , A l bertal l eged thatD efe ndant Schw art z i nt i m i dat ed and di s s uaded a pr i vat e i nves t i gat orhi r ed byA l bertfr om cont act i ng a w itn e ss a f

ter th e c o n c lu sio n o f

A lb e rt’s c rim in a l trial. T h e re c o rd (i.e. th e p riv a te in v e stig a to r’s lette r) h o w e v e r, sh o w s th a t S c h w a rtz m a d e c o n tac t w ith th e p riv a te i nves t i gat oraft ers he i nt ervi ew ed the w i tnes s . A l bertdi d notfi l e an a ffi davi tt o count er thi s evi dence i n t he r ecor d. T hus , A l bertfai l ed t o demonstr at e a ge nui ne i s s ue of f acton th i s c l a i m. Fi nal l y , w e fi nd thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n deny i ng A l bert ’ s R ul e 60( b) M ot i on. I n s u m, we c o n c l u d e th a tth e Di s tr i c tCo u r tp r o p e r l yd i s mi s s e d Cl a i ms I , I I , I I I , V, V I, V II a n d V II I a n d p ro p e rl yg ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a s to C la im s IV a n d IX . B e c a u s e th is a p p e a l la c k s m e ri t, w e w ill d is m is s it u n d e r § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B ).