2005 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 6-27-2005 

# P ardue v . Gra y 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 . 04-2784

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_2005

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 2005 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 " P ar due v . Gr a y " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 958. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/958H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak, D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tof * th e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .

1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N o. 04- 2784

__________ J A N E E L L E N PA R D U E , A ppel l ant

v. JA M E S G R A Y , L Y N N E S Y M O N S ; T HE BO RO UGH OF DAL T ON

v. LACKAW ANN A TRAI L S CHOOL DI S TRI CT

T h ird P a rty J ane El l en Par due, A ppel l ant

__________ O n 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 3: C V - 01- 0843) U n ited S tate s M a g istra te J u d g e : T h e H o n o ra b le T h o m a s M . B lew itt

_________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay10, 2005

_________ B efore: S L O V ITE R and F ISH E R , C i rcui tJudg es.

and PO L L A K , D i s tr i ctJ udge. * ( Fi l ed J une 27, 2005)2 ________ OP I NI ON

________ PO L L A K , D i s tr i ctJ udge: T h is is a n a p p e a l f

ro m a n o rd e r o f

th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entfordefe ndant s J ames G r ay , L ynne Sy m ons , and the B or ough of D al t on. A ppel l antJ ane El l en Par due i ni t i at ed the pr es ent act i on i n the D i s tr i ctC our ton M ay11, 2001, al l egi ng m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on and cons pi r acyt o vi ol at e herci vi l r i ght s pur s uantt o § 1983 as w el l as Penns y l vani a comm on law c laim s o f

m a licio u s p ro se c u tio n a n d c o n sp ira c y . F o r th e re a so n s s tate d b e lo w , w e w ill a f f i r m. I. Si nce w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , w e w i l l l i m i tourdi s cus s i on t o the pr ocedur al hi s t oryand pert i nentfac t s . Par due w as empl oy ed as a s chool t eac herfort he L acka w anna Tr ai l School D i s tr i ctfr om 1973 thr ough 1997. D efe ndantSy m ons w or ked as a secr et aryfor the scho ol di stri ctand , ov er the y ears , the tw o w om en d eveloped a cl ose fr i ends hi p. E ventual l y , Par due l earned thatSy m ons and J ames Evans , the pr i nci pal of the sc h o o l w h e re P a rd u e tau g h t, w e re in v o lv e d in a n e x tra -m a rital a f f a ir. A f ter in iti a lly over l ooki ng the af

fai r , on M ar ch 8, 1997, Par due i nform ed Sym ons and Evans thats he w o u ld n o lo n g e r c o n c e a l th e irre la tio n s h ip .A ft erphot ogr aphi ng the tw o of them, Par due dr ove t o E vans ’ s hous e and 2 d is c lo s e d th e a f

f a irto h is w if

e . 3 O n M ar ch 24, 1997, Sy m ons m etw i th C hi ef of Pol i ce J ames G r ayathi s hom e and i nform ed hi m thats he w as bei ng s t al ked and ha r as s ed byPar due. Sy m ons t ol d G r ayt hat sin c e th e b e g in n in g o f

th a t m o n th , P a rd u e h a d re p e a ted lyd riv e n u p a n d d o w n th e stre e t in frontof h er house, had foll ow ed h er i n h er car , and had ph otographed her w i th E van s. 2 A tthatm eet i ng, Sy m ons al s o pr ovi ded G r ayw i th a s etof not es s he had t aken w hi ch d o c u m e n te d P a rd u e ’s b e h a v io r s in c e th e b e g in n in g o f M a rc h . See A pp. at428. Sy m ons w a s s u b se q u e n tlyin ter v iew e d b yD e tec tiv e Ja m e s R e ill yo f th e L a c k a w a n n a C o u n ty D i s tr i ctA t t orney ’ s O ffi ce. O n the bas i s of thes e i nt ervi ew s , G r ayand R ei l l yfi l ed and s i gned an A ffi davi tof Pr obabl e C aus e. T he r es ul t antcr i m i nal compl ai ntw as al s o s i gned byboth m en and appr oved bythe D i s tr i ctA t t orney ’ s O ffi ce. O n A pr i l 1, 1997, G r ayarr es t ed Par due on char ges of har as s i ng Sy m ons and s t al ki ng her . N ei therG r aynorR ei l l yi nt ervi ew ed Par due pr i ort o arr es t i ng her . A ta pr el i m i naryhear i ng, a s t at e magi s tr at e found thatt he pr os ecut i on had es t abl i s hed a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e and bound the cha r ges overfortr i al i n the L acka w anna Count yC our tof C om m on Pl eas . Fol l ow i ng a thr ee- dayj urytr i al i n M ay 1999, Par due w as acqui t t ed of both char ges . W hen arr es t ed and c har ged, Par due w as s u s p e n d e d w ith o u t p a yf ro m h e r t e a c h in g p o s itio n a t L a c k a w a n n a T ra il S c h o o l. F o llo w in g a c q u itta l, s h e w a s re in s ta te d b u t h a s n o t r e c e iv e d b a c k p a y .4

I n the pr es entact i on, Par due al l eges thatSy m ons fi l ed s t al ki ng and har as s m ent char ges t o i nt i m i dat e herand kee p herfr om r evea l i ng the af fai rand thatG r aypur s ued the char ges even though he knew theyw er e fa l s e. O n M ay27, 2004, M agi s tr at e J udge T h o m as M . B lew itt, w h o w as a ssign ed to h an d le th e c ase in it s en ti rety , g ran ted s u m m ary j udgm entforthe def

endant s . Par due now appea l s fr om thator der , cont endi ng thatthe M agi s tr at e J udge err ed i n fi ndi ng thatno genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac texi s t ed r egar di ng ( 1) w hetherG r ayhad pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es ther ; and ( 2) w hetherG r ayand Sym ons f o rm e d a c o n s p ir a c yto v io la te h e r c iv il r ig h ts . II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overPar due’ s fede r al l aw cl ai m s pur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § § 1 3 3 1 a n d 1 3 4 3 (a ) a n d o v e r h e r s ta te la w c la im s p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1367( a) . T hi s courthas appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew o f a g ra n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is p le n a ry. Fogl em an v. Mer cy H os p. , I nc . , 283 F. 3d 561, 566 ( 3d. C i r . 2002) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s pr operi f ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c ta n d i f

, v i e w i n g th e f

a c t s i n th e l i g h tm o s tf

a v o r a b l e t o th e n o n - m o v i n g p a r ty, th e 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 . See F .R .C .P . 5 6 (c ); C el ot ex C o rp . v. C a tre tt, 4 7 7 U . S . 3 1 7 (19 8 6 ). III . A . P robabl e C ause t o A rre s t P ardue I n or dert o pr evai l on a §1983 mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m , the pl ai nt i ff musts how5

an abs ence of pr obabl e ca us e fori ni t i at i ng the cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs . I n gener al , “the q u e s tio n o f

p ro b a b le c a u s e in a s e c tio n 1 9 8 3 d a m a g e s u it is o n e f o r t h e ju ry.” Mont gom er y v. D e Si m one , 1 5 9 F . 3 d 1 2 0 , 1 2 4 (3d . C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). H o w ev er, a d istri ct co u rt m ayco n clud e tha t pro b ab le ca u se e x ist s as a m att er o f law , an d h en ce g ran t sum m ary j udgm ent , i f the evi dence , w hen vi ew ed i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pl ai nt i ff, re a s o n a b ly w o u ld n o t s u p p o rt a c o n tr a ry f a c tu a l f in d in g . Sh e r w o o d

v . Mu lv ih ill, 113 F. 3d 3 9 6 , 4 0 1 (3d . C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). O n ap p ea l, P ard u e c h all en g es, on tw o p ri n cipa l gro u n d s, the M ag istrate Ju d g e’s det erm i nat i on that“a r eas onabl e j urycoul d notfi nd thatthe arr es tof the Pl ai nt i ff l acke d pr obabl e ca us e. ” Fi r s t , Par due ar gues thatthe M agi s tr at e J udge i m pr oper l yr el i ed on a se rie s o f c o m m o n law p re su m p tio n s re g a rd in g th e e x iste n c e o f p ro b a b le c a u se w h ich , in pl ai nt i ff’ s vi ew , have no be ar i ng on a § 1983 mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m . Second, P ardue co ntends that G raydid not cond uct an i nd epen den ti nv est i gati on i nto Sy m on s’ al l egat i ons , i ncl udi ng i nt ervi ew i ng Par due, pr i ort o pr epar i ng the af fi davi tand arr es t i ng h e r. Pr obabl e ca us e i s as s es s ed byexami ni ng the “t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s ” and a d o p tin g a “ c o m m o n s e n s e ” a p p ro a c h . I l l i nois v. G at es , 4 6 2 U .S . 2 1 3 (1 9 8 3 ). It is w e ll e sta b lish e d th a t p ro b a b le c a u se e x ists w h e re “ f a c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s [ a re ] su f f icie n t to w arr anta prudentm an i n bel i evi ng thatthe [s us pect ] had comm i t t ed orw as comm i t t i ng an off ens e. ” Shar r arv. Fel

s i ng , 128 F. 3d 810, 818 ( 3d. C i r . 1997) . I n concl udi ng thatT he M agi s tr at e J udge ci t ed W i l l i am s v. Fedor , 69 F. Supp. 2d 649, 670 ( M . D . Pa. 3 1999) , forthe pr opos i t i on that , “U nderPenns y l vani a l aw , . . . ‘ cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs in iti a ted u p o n a d v ice o f c o u n se l ar e c o n c lu siv e lyp re su m e d to b e su p p o rte d b yp ro b a b le caus e w hen the advi ce of couns el w as s oughti n good fai th and the advi ce w as gi ven af t er ful l di s cl os ur e of the fa ct s t o t he att orney . ’ ” ( quot i ng Kel l ey v. G eneral Tea m st ers, C hauf f eurs & H el pers , LocalU

ni on 249 , 5 4 4 A .2 d 9 4 0 , 9 4 2 (1 9 8 8 )) . I n Mon t go m ery , a muni ci pal courtj udge had f ound the pl ai nt i ff gui l tyof 4 s peedi ng, drunk dr i vi ng, and r efus i ng t o t ake a br eathal y s ert es t . M ont gom eryappea l ed h e r c o n v ictio n to th e S u p e rio r C o u rt o f N e w Je rse y . F o llo w in g a trial d e n o v o , the S up eri or C ou rtrever sed her con vict i on s. 6 pr obabl e ca us e exi s t ed as a mat t erof l aw , the M agi s tr at e J udge not ed that : ( 1) “D et ect i ve R ei l l yof the D i s tr i ctA t t orney ’ s O ffi ce c o- i nves t i gat ed the cha r ges w hi ch w er e fi l ed agai ns tthe Pl ai nt i ff [ and] co- s i gned [both] the af fi davi tof pr obabl e ca us e and the c rim in a l co m p lain t;” (2 ) th e D istric t A tto rn e y ’s O f f ice a p p ro v e d th e c rim in a l co m p lain t; 3 and ( 3) ata pr el i m i naryhear i ng, a magi s tr at e found a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e exi s t ed t o bi nd o v e r t h e c h a rg e s f

o r t ri a l. I n Mont gom er y v. D e Si m one , 159 F. 3d 120 ( 3d. C i r . 1998) , thi s courthel d that 4 th e T o rts R e sta tem e n t ru le th a t a c o n v ictio n “ b ya m a g istra te o r tria l co u rt,” e v e n if overturned, “conc l us i vel yes t abl i s hes the exi s t ence of pr obabl e ca us e” doe s notappl yt o a § 1 9 8 3 m a licio u s p ro se c u tio n a c tio n . R e sta tem e n t (S e c o n d ) o f T o rts § 6 6 7 (1 ). F u rth e r, in Merkl e v. U

pp er D ub l i n S ch. D ist . , w e hel d that“the comm on l aw pr es um pt i on r ai s ed by a magi s tr at e’ s pr i orfi ndi ng thatpr obabl e ca us e exi s t s does notappl yt o s ect i on 1983 act i ons . ” 211 F. 3d 782, 789 ( 3d. C i r . 2000) . Par due ar gues that , i n l i ghtof Mon t go m ery and Me rk le , the D i s tr i ctA t t orney ’ s appr oval of the cha r ges and the magi s tr at e’ s deci s i on7

to b in d th e c h a rg e s o v e r f o r tria l ar e irre lev a n t to d e c id in g w h e th e r G ra yh a d p ro b a b le c a u s e to a rr e s t h e r. Mont gom er y and Me rk le s t and forthe pr opos i t i on thatthe comm on l aw pr es um pt i ons m aynotbe r el i ed on as “conc l us i ve” e vi dence of pr obabl e ca us e that w o u ld “ n e c e s s a ri ly n e g a te ” a c o n tr a ry f in d in g . Mon t

go m ery , 15 9 F . 3d at12 2. In the case atbar , how ever , the M agi s tr at e J udge di d notr el yon the pr es um pt i ons i n thi s w ay . J udge B l ew i t tci t ed the i ndepende ntfi ndi ngs of the D i s tr i ctA t t orneyand magi s tr at e as evi dence th a t s u p p o rt e d , ra th e r t h a n c o m p e lle d , a f in d in g o f p ro b a b le c a u s e . E ven w i tho ut r eference t o the com m on l aw presum pti on s, G rayhad probab l e cause to a rre st P a rd u e . “P ro b a b le c a u se to a rre st e x ists w h e n th e f a c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s w ith in th e a rre stin g o f

f ice r’s k n o w led g e a re su f f icie n t in th e m se lv e s to w a rra n t a r e a so n a b le p e rs o n to b e lie v e th a t a n o f f e n s e h a s b e e n c o m m itte d b yth e p e rs o n to b e a rr e s te d .” O rs at t iv. N

ew Jer s ey Stat e Pol i ce , 71 F. 3d 480, 482 ( 3d. C i r . 1995) . A tthe t i m e he arr est ed P ardue, G rayhad recei ved a reportfrom S ym on s, a kn ow n an d credi ble w i tness, thatPar due had e ngaged i n t he al l eged be havi or ; Sy m ons w as vi s i bl yups etr ecount i ng P a rd u e ’s c o n d u c t ( s ee D i s t . C t . O p. at24) ; Sy m ons pr es ent ed G r ayw i th cont empora neous n o tes d o c u m e n tin g th e c o n d u c t ( s ee A pp. at428) ; and, as G r ayt es t i fi ed, G r ayknew P a rd u e h a d a h is to ry o f

s im ila r b e h a v io r. See D is t. C t. O p . a t 2 4 ; A p p . a t 3 1 5 -1 7 . See a l so Me rk le , 211 F. 3d at790, n. 8 ( fi ndi ng thatpol i ce of fi cer“had e veryr eas on t o bel i eve a cre d ible rep o rtfro m a sc h o o l pri n cipa l w h o w itn esse d the a ll eg ed crim e. T h is r ep o rt a lo n e su f f icie n tlye sta b lish e d p ro b a b le c a u se . [T h e p o lice o f f ice r] w a s n o t re q u ire d to8

u n d e rta k e a n e x h a u stiv e in v e stig a tio n in o rd e r to v a lid a te th e p ro b a b le c a u se th a t, i n h is m i nd, al r eadyexi s t ed. ”) . E ven ac cept i ng, as the M agi s tr at e J udge di d, that“G r aydi d not ful l yi nves t i gat e the fa ct s under l y i ng the cha r ges agai ns tthe Pl ai nt i ff, ” ( D i s t . C t . O p. at 2 2 ) i ti s a p p a r e n tth a t , a s th e M a g i s tr a t e J u d g e d e t e r mi n e d , Gr a yh a d , a s a ma t t e ro f l a w, pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tPar due. B . C o n sp irac y to V iolate P a rd u e’s C ivilR igh ts Par due nextcl ai m s thatthe M agi s tr at e J udge err ed i n hol di ng that , as a mat t erof l aw , Sy m ons and G r aydi d notcons pi r e t o depr i ve herof herci vi l r i ght s . T hi s por t i on of th e a p p e a l als o lac k s m e rit. A c a u se o f a c tio n f o r c iv il co n sp ira c yre q u ire s a se p a ra te u n d e rly in g to rt a s a p re d ica te f o r liab ili ty . “T h u s, o n e c a n n o t su e a g ro u p o f d e f e n d a n ts forcons pi r i ng t o engage i n conductthatw oul d notbe ac t i onabl e aga i ns tan i ndi vi dual defe ndant . ” In re O rth o p e d ic B o n e Sc re w P ro d u c ts L ia b ili ty L it . , 193 F. 3d 781, 789 ( 3d. C i r . 1999) . B eca us e w e agr ee w i th the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s det erm i nat i on thatdefe ndant G r ayhad pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tand cha r ge Par due, and i s not , ther efor e, l i abl e fort he under l y i ng t or tof m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on, the cons pi r acycl ai m cannotbe s us t ai ned. Fur therm or e, t o es t abl i s h the exi s t ence of a c ons pi r acyunder§ 1983 a pl ai nt i ff musts how thattw o orm or e cons pi r at or s r eac hed an a gr eementt o depr i ve herof a c ons t i tut i onal ri g h t u n d e r c o lo r o f

s ta te la w , P a rkw a

y G a ra g e , In c . v. C ity o f P h ila d e lp h ia , 5 F. 3d 685, 7 0 0 (3 d . C ir . 1 9 9 3 ), ab roga t ed o n o ther grou nd s, U ni t ed Art is t

s Theatr e C i r cui t

, I nc. v. Tow ns hi p of W ar r i ngt on, 316 F. 3d 392 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , and thi s Par due fa i l ed t o do. T heIn f a c t, at th e p re lim in a ryh e a rin g , S ym o n s te stif ied th a t sh e d isa g re e d w ith 5 p o rt io n s o f

th e a f f id a v it. 9 M agi s tr at e J udge found thatther e w as “i ns uffi ci entevi dence , ei therdi r ector ci r cumst ant i al , t o s how an agr eementexi s t ed betw een Sym ons and G r ayt o vi ol at e anyof the Pl ai nt i ff’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . ” D i s t . C t . O p. at11. W e agr ee. Par due pr es ent ed no evi dence thatG r ayand Sym ons agr eed t o fi l e fa l s e cha r ges . T her e i s no evi dence that Sy m ons pr ovi ded fa l s e i nform at i on t o G r ayorthathe, i n turn, know i ngl yus ed s uch in f o rm a tio n to su p p o rt th e c h a rg e s. A lth o u g h th e a f f id a v it o f p ro b a b le c a u se d id c o n tain i nacc ur aci es , ther e i s no evi dence thatSy m ons knew of thos e i nacc ur aci es atthe t i m e the a f f id a v it w a s f

iled . F u rth e rm o re , G ra yd id n o t ac t u n ilate ra lly . D e tec tiv e R e ill y 5 part i ci pat ed i n i nt ervi ew i ng Sy m ons , dr aft i ng the af fi davi t , and fi l i ng the cha r ges , and the L ackaw ann a C ou ntyD i stri ctA t t orney ’s O ffi ce app roved the charges, present ed the case ata pr el i m i naryhear i ng, and pr os ecut ed Par due. H ow ever , Par due does notal l ege that R e illy, o r a n yo th e rs in th e D is tr ic t A tto rn e y ’s O f f ic e , p a rt ic ip a te d in th e c o n s p ir a c y . V i ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o Par due, s he fa i l ed t o pr es ent su f f icie n t ev id e n c e o f

a n a g re e m e n t b e tw e e n S ym o n s a n d G ra yf o r a re a so n a b le ju ryto fi nd that theyhad con spi red t o v i olat e her ci vil ri gh t s. I V. A ccor di ngl y , the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.