2007 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 9-25-2007 

# H arri son v . Mi lle r 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 . 07-2296

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_2007

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 2007 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 arr i s on v

. Mi lle r " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 378. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/378DL D- 3 7 3 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. 07- 2296

________________ CL AR E NC E HAR RI S ON, A ppel l ant

v. B IL L M IL L E R , S alem C o u n tyE n g inee r; JO S E P H F E D E M C I, JR . , S alem C o u n tyE n g inee r; C H A R L E S R . S U L L IV A N , F ree h o lder; L E E R . W A R E , F ree h o lder; S U S A N A . B E S T W IC K , F ree h o lder; B R U C E L . B O B B IT T , F ree h o lder; R . B E N J A M IN S IM M E R M O N , J R .; C . D A V ID S P A R K S , J R .;

BE T H E . T I M BE RMAN

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

Fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 03552) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e N oel L . H i l l m an

____________________________________ 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) o r P o s s ib le S u m m a ry A c tio n U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 Sept ember7, 2007 BEFORE: BA RRY , AM BRO a n d FI SHER, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: Sept ember25, 2007)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________2

P E R C UR I AM A ppel l ant , C l ar ence H arr i s on, appea l s fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng t he ap p ell ee s’ m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t and the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de n ial o f H arrison ’s m o tio n to re c o n sid e r th a t d ism iss a l. F o r th e re a so n s s e t f o rth b e lo w , w e w ill su m m a rily af firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. H arr i s on ow ns pr oper t yl ocat ed i n M anni ngt on T ow ns hi p, Sal em C ount y , N ew J er s ey . I n J ul y2005, H arr i s on comm ence d an ac t i on i n t he U . S. D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D istri ct of

N ew Jerse yag ains t sev era l Sa lem C o u n tyem p loy ee s an d fre eh o lders (tog ethe r, the “ S alem C o u n tyd ef

en d an ts”), all eg ing that h e su stai n ed injuries w h il e jum p ing o v er a g u a rd ra il th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts h a d e re c ted a ro u n d h is p ro p e rtyw ith o u t h is c o n se n t. H arr i s on cl ai m ed thatt he def endant s : ( 1) vi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s byer ect i ng t he guar dr ai l ; and ( 2) w er e l i abl e underN ew J er s eyl aw forhi s bodi l yi nj ur i es . H e s oughtt en m i l l i on do l l ars i n d am ages. T he part i es fi l ed cr os s m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent . I n M ay2006, the D i s tr i ct C o u rt d e n ied b o th m o tio n s in o rd e r to g iv e H a rriso n a n o p p o rtu n ityto a m e n d h is compl ai nt . T he courtexpl ai ned thatunl es s H arr i s on coul d s etfor t h s peci fi c al l egat i ons as t o h ow each o f t he d efen dan t s vi olat ed the U nit ed S t at es and N ew Jer seyC on st i tuti on s, an d p rov ide e v iden ce in su p p o rto f h is cl aim s, h is co m p lai n t w o u ld b e d ism issed . In resp o n se, H arrison d id f il e a n am en d ed co m p lai n t, b u t st il l fail ed to ad eq u atelysu p p o rt hi s al l egat i ons . A s a r es ul t , on M ar ch 20, 2007, the D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed an or derI n hi s not i ce of appea l , H arr i s on s eeks r evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der 1 deny i ng hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, butdoes notappea rt o appea l fr om the pr ece di ng o rd e r e n te ri n g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a g a in s t h im . N o n e th e le s s , w e w ill r e v ie w b o th o rd e rs . S e e W ill iam s v . G u z z a rd i, 87 5 F .2 d 4 6 , 4 9 (3 d C ir.1 9 8 9 ) (s tatin g th a t itis p ro p e r to e x e rc ise a p p e llate ju risd ictio n “ o v e r o rd e rs n o t sp e c if ied in th e n o tice o f

a p p e a l if th e re is a conne ct i on betw een the s peci fi ed and uns peci fi ed or der , the i nt ent i on t o appea l the u n sp e c if ied o rd e r is a p p a re n t an d th e o p p o sin g p a rtyis n o t p re ju d ice d a n d h a s a f

u ll o p p o rtu n ityto b ri ef

the issu e” ). 3 gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the Sal em C ount ydefe ndant s . H arr i s on s ubm i t t ed a t i m el ym ot i on forr econs i der at i on, w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed on A pr i l 19, 2007. T he pr es entappea l fol l ow ed. 1 We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rt h i s a p p e a l p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d r e v i e w a 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 d e n o v o . P e n n sy lv a n ia C o a l A ss ' n v . B a b b itt , 63 F. 3d 231, 236 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s pr operonl yi f i tappea r s “that t her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) ; C arr as ca v. Pom er oy , 313 F. 3d 828, 832- 33 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . I f a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm entdemonstr at es thatno genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac texi s t s , t he nonmovi ng par t ym us ts etfor t h s peci fi c fa ct s s how i ng a g e n u in e m a ter ial iss u e f o r tria l an d m a yn o t re st u p o n th e m e re a lleg a tio n s o r d e n ials o f its p lead ing s. C o n n o rs v. F aw n M ining C o rp., 3 0 F . 3 d 4 8 3 , 4 8 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). A fter a car eful r evi ew of the r ecor d, w e conc l ude thatthe appe al pr es ent s “no s ubs t ant i al q u e stio n ” u n d e r T h ird C irc u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 a n d w ill , the re f o re , su m m a rily a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r d ism iss in g H a rriso n ’s c o m p lain t.4

F ir st, the D istri ct C o u rtp rop erlyco n clud ed that the S alem C o u n tyd ef en d an ts w ere ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm enton H arr i s on’ s cl ai m thattheyvi ol at ed hi s Fi fth and F o u r t e e n t h Am e n d me n tr i g h t s wh e n th e ye r e c t e d th e g u a r d r a i l wi t h o u th i s c o n s e n t . As t he D i s t r i ctC our texpl ai ned, t he Fi fth A m endment , m ade a ppl i cabl e t o t he s t at es thr ough th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t, au th o riz e s th e sta te to tak e p riv a te p ro p e rtyf o r p u b lic u se if j us tcompensa t i on i s pai d t o t he ow ner . See U ni t ed St at es v. 6. 45 A cr es of Land, 409 F . 3 d 1 3 9 , 1 4 5 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) . Th e r e f o r e , i n o r d e rt o ma k e o u ta Ta k i n g s Cl a u s e c l a i m, H arr i s on w as r equi r ed t o s how , as a thr es hol d m att er , thatthe cons t ruct i on of the g u a rd ra il c o n s titu te d a “ ta k in g ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e F if th A m e n d m e n t. S e e id . H arr i s on, how ever , fai l ed t o i dent i fyanys peci fi c fa ct s orpr ovi de anyaff i r m at i ve evi dence s how i ng how t he guar dr ai l i nt er fer ed w i t h hi s pr oper t yr i ght s . A l t hough H arr i s on fi l ed an oppos i t i on t o t he def endant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , the oppos i t i on added nothi ng new t o t he conc l us oryal l egat i ons i n hi s pl eadi ngs . T her efor e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l yconcl uded thatH arr i s on fai l ed t o s etfor t h fac t s s how i ng a genui ne mat er i al i s s ue fort r i al on hi s Fi fth A m endmentcl ai m . See C onnor s , 30 F. 3d at 489. Fur t herm or e, t o t he ext entt hatH arr i s on’ s pl eadi ngs can be cons t rued as al l egi ng a su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss c laim u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , H a rriso n f a iled to a lleg e f

a c ts su f f icie n t to w ith sta n d su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th a t cla im a s w e ll. A s th e S a lem C o u n ty defe ndant s corr ect l ynot ed i n t hei rm ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , onl yexec ut i ve ac t i onT he D i s t r i ctC our tanal y zed H arr i s on’ s negl i gence cl ai m undergener al negl i gence 2 l aw w i t houtr efe r ence t o t he N ew J er s eyT or tC l ai m s A ct , N . J . S. A . 59: 1- 1, ets eq. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s err ori s , how ever , harm l es s , as H arr i s on’ s cl ai m coul d notw i t hs t and sum m aryj ud gm ent unde r ei t her analy si s. 5 th a t “s h o c k s th e c o n sc ien c e ” c o n stitu tes a su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n . S e e C o u n ty of Sacr ament o v. L ew i s , 523 U . S. 833, 845- 46 ( 1998) ; U ni t ed A r t i s t s T heatr e C i r cui t , I nc. v. T w p. of W arr i ngt on, Pa. , 316 F. 3d 392, 401 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T he s ubs t ant i ve componentof the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e ca n onl ybe vi ol at ed bygovernm ent al empl oy ees w hen thei rconductamount s t o an abus e of of fi ci al pow erthati s “arbi t r aryi n a cons t i tut i onal s ens e. ” C ol l i ns v. H arkerH ei ght s , 503 U . S. 115, 128 ( 1992) . H er e, H arr i s on fai l ed t o s how t hatSal em C ount y ’ s cons t ruct i on of the guar dr ai l w as i n anyw ay im p ro p e r, let a lo n e a rb itrar yo r c o n sc ien c e sh o c k in g . T h e re f o re , the S a lem C o u n ty defe ndant s w er e ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm enton t hi s cl ai m as w el l . See C onnor s , 30 F. 3d at489. W e a lso a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rtthat the S alem C o u n tyd ef en d an ts w ere ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm enton H arr i s on’ s negl i gence cl ai m . I n hi s pl eadi ngs , H arr i s on appea r s t o al l ege thatt he Sal em C ount ydefe ndant s w er e negl i genti n er ect i ng or m ai nt ai ni ng t he guar dr ai l , and thatthei rnegl i gence caus ed hi m t o s uffe ri nj ur i es t o hi s l eg and for earm , w hi ch ul t i m at el yr es ul t ed i n canc er . Si nce the guar dr ai l w as er ect ed by e m p lo y e e s o f

a p u b lic e n tity , the ir liab ili tyis g o v e rn e d b yN e w Je rse y ’s T o rt C laim s A c t, N . J . S. A . 59: 1- 1, ets eq. H arr i s on, how ever , fai l ed t o s etfor t h s peci fi c fa ct s s how i ng t hat 26

t her e w as a genui ne i s s ue fort r i al on thi s cl ai m . See N . J . S. A . 59: 4- 2. H arr i s on di d not pr es ents uffi ci entevi dence t o demonstr at e thata r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd thatthe guar dr ai l cons t i tut ed a da nger ous condi t i on, nordi d he s etfor t h evi dence cr eat i ng a genui ne i s s ue as t o w hetherhe s us t ai ned the al l eged i nj ur i es as a r es ul tof the fa l l . See B row n v . B row n , 4 3 2 A . 2 d 4 9 3 , 4 9 8 (N . J. 1 9 8 1 ). A cc o rdin g ly , the D istri ct C o u rt corr ect l yconcl uded thatt he Sal em C ount ydefe ndant s w er e ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm ent on H arr i s on’ s negl i gence cl ai m . See C onnor s , 30 F. 3d at489. Fi nal l y , w e have r evi ew ed H arr i s on’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on and the D i s t r i ct C ou rt ’s A pri l 19 , 20 07 order deny i ng i t , and con cl ud e t hat the D i stri ctC ou rtdid not abuse i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng t he mot i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yconcl uded that H arr i s on’ s m ot i on di d notpr es entanynew l ydi s cover ed evi dence orl egal pr ece dent , and th a t H a rriso n f

a iled to d e m o n stra te th e n e e d to c o rre c t a c lea r e rro r o f law o r f a c t to pr eventm ani fes ti nj us t i ce. See M ax’ s Seafood Café v. Q ui nt er os , 176 F. 3d 669, 677 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yent er ed s um m aryj udgm entagai ns tH arr i s on. A ccor di ngl y , as ther e i s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on pr es ent ed byt hi s appea l , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m . See Thi r d C i r . L A R 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6.