### NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No. 09- 1334

__________ S T E V E N D . G E B H A R T , A p p e llan t.

v. J OH N V AU GH N, I I ; CU RTI S A. W HI TM OY ER 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 i s t r i ctC our tN o. 1- 06- cv- 01754) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n . C h ri stop h er C . C o n n er Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober2, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O , G A R T H and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay6, 2010)

O P I N I O N R O T H , C i r cui tJ udge: St even G ebhar tappea l s t he fi nal or derof t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entforthe def endant s V aughn

### The Di s tr i c t Court i nt e r pr e t e d the c om

pl a i nt a s a s s e rt i ng ac l a i m

a ga i ns t Vaughn 1 

### for fa l s e arr e s t . As s um i ng i t doe s , the Di s tr i c t

Court pr ope r l y gr ant e d s umm ary

judgm e nt inf av o r o f V au g hno nth e claim . “ [A] pl a i nt i ff m ay

s uc c e e d i n a§ 1983 a c t i on for fa l s e arr e s t

m a de pur s uant

t o a warr ant i f the plai ntiff sho ws, by a prepo nd er ance of

the e vidence: (1) that the po li ce o f f icer ‘kn o w in g ly

an dd elib erately , o r w itha reck less d isreg ardf o r th e truth , m ad e f

alse st at em ents or om is si on s that c re at e a fals ehoo d in app lying f

or a warrant; ’ and(2) that ‘su chstatem en t o r o m issio n s are m aterial, o r n ecessary , to th e f in d in g o f p ro b ab le ca use. ’” Wilso n v. R u sso , 212 F. 3d 781, 786- 87 ( 3d Ci r . 2000) ( quot i ng Sh er wo od v. M u lvih ill , 11 3 F . 3d39 6, 39 9 ( 3dCi r . 19 97 ) ) . A mi s s t at e m e nt or omi s s i oni s m at e r i a li f, a ft e r c orr e c t i on of the m i s l e a di ng s t at e m e nt s ( or i ns e rt i on of the om i tt e d i nform at i on) , the af f id av it w o u ldn o lo n g er estab lishp ro b ab le cau se. W i l s on , 212 F. 3d at

789. Here , Gebhardt al le ges that Vaugh n, in his a ff idavit s of p robable c ause , om itte d the fac t t hat Gebhardt was incar ce rate d. Th e Dis tric t Court prop erly ob se rved that

ther e wa s no e vi de nc e e s t abl i s hi ng that Vaughn kne w Ge bhar dt

wa s i nc ar c e r at e d whe n he sub m ittedh is af

f id av its, an dthu s n o ev id en ce th at th e o m issio n s w ere m ad e kn o w in g ly or r e c kl e s s l y . Mor e ove r , e ve n a s s um i ng that Vaughn kne w of Ge bhar dt ' s i nc ar c e r at i on, 2 an d W h itm o y er. T h e D istri ct C o u rth ad juri sd ict ion u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 3 1 . T h is C o u rt has j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overa gr antof s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Ko ss ler v . C ris a n ti, 564 F. 3d 181, 186 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . W e appl yt he sam e stan d ard as u sed b ythe D istri ct C o u rtan d m ayaf firm the o rde r i f th e d ef en d an ts are e n tit led to ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law , w ith th e f

a c ts v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to G e b h a rt . Ni ci ni v. Morra , 2 1 2 F . 3 d 7 9 8 , 8 0 5 -06 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( en banc ) . B eca us e t he par t i es ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ct s , w e w i l l des cr i be them onl yas nece s s aryt o expl ai n our d e c is io n . F o r t h e re a s o n s d is c u s s e d b e lo w , w e w ill a f f ir m . St even G ebhar tfi l ed a c i vi l r i ght s act i on under42 U . S. C . § 1983 agai ns tV aughn, a d e te c tiv e , a n d W h itm o y e r, a s ta te tr o o p e r, a lle g in g , i nt eral i a, m a licio u s p ro se c u tio n in vi ol at i on of hi s Four t h A m endment r i ght s . H e al l eges t hatV aughn and W hi t m oy er 1

### th e o m issio no f th at in f o rm atio nf

ro m th e af f id av its w as n o t m aterial. 3 m al i ci ous l ychar ged hi m w i t h t he cr i m e of theftbydece pt i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our t , w hi ch fo u n d p rob ab le ca u se a fter h ea ri n g the c o m p lai n ing w itn esse s, g ran ted s u m m ary j udgm entfort he def

endant s beca us e G ebhartw as unabl e t o pr ove t hatt heyl acke d pr obabl e ca us e i n pr os ecut i ng hi m . G ebhartappea l s t hi s or der , ar gui ng t hatt he D i s t r i ct C o u rt a p p lied a n in c o rre c t leg a l sta n d a rd , tha t ite rre d b yn o t su b m itt in g th e “ p ro b a b le caus e” e l ement t o a j ur y , and t he Penns y l vani a s t at e cour tor derdi s m i s s i ng t he under l y i ng charges w as re s ju d ica ta as t o t he i s s ue of pr obabl e ca us e. W e w i l l aff

i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der . B eca us e G ebhartcannotpr ove t hatt he d ef en d an ts l ac k ed p rob ab le ca u se w h en ch arg ing h im w ith the c ri m e, t h e d ef en d an ts are e n title d to s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See Jo hn son v. Kno rr , 477 F. 3d 75, 82 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( l i s t i ng t he fi ve fa ct or s nece s s ar yt o pr ove a c l ai m of m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on, i ncl udi ng t hat “t he d efen dan ti nit i at ed the proceed i ng w i t ho ut pr ob able cause. ”) “[P]r ob able cause e x ists w h e n th e to talityo f th e c irc u m sta n c e s w ith in a n o f f ice r’s k n o w led g e is s u f f icie n t to w ar r anta per s on of r eas onabl e ca ut i on t o concl ude t hatt he per s on bei ng ar r es t ed has comm i t t ed, ori s comm i t t i ng, an off ens e. ” U n itedS ta tes v . L a v ill e , 480 F. 3d 187, 189 ( 3d C i r. 20 07 ). T he is sue of probab l e cause can be d eci ded as a m at t er of l aw i f t he fa ct s, “vi ew ed mostfavor abl yt o Pl ai nt i ff, r eas onabl yw oul d nots uppor ta contr aryfac tual fi ndi ng. ” See Estat e of

Sm i th v. M

ar as co , 318 F. 3d 497, 514 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T he u n d ispu ted f

ac ts sho w that cu stom er K an e g av e A b b o tt stow n P o le (G eb h art’s co m p an y ) a

### 4

check for $6 , 76 0 m ade p ay able t o C art er Lu m ber, t o all ow A bb ott st ow n P ole t o p urchase l um berfori t s pr oj ect . G ebhar tdi d notdo s o. O ffi cerW hi t m oy er , t her efor e, had pr obabl e ca us e t o char ge G ebhar tw i t h t heftbyfai l ur e t o m ake r equi r ed di s pos i t i on of t he fun ds. W e furt her fi nd G ebh art ’s r es j udi cata ar gum entunavai l i ng, as t her e w as no i dent i t yof i s s ues i nvol ved betw een the dec i s i on t o di s m i s s t he under l y i ng cas e forl ack of e v id e n c e re g a rd in g in te n t a n d th e is s u e o f p ro b a b le c a u s e . F o r t h e re aso n s d iscu ssed ab o v e, w e w il l aff irm the o rde r of

the D istri ct C o u rt grant i ng sum m aryj ud gm ent for the d efen dan t s.