1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 11-3609

_____________

MAR-LIN MINATEE,

 Appellant 

v.

PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; LT 

CLIFTON LYGHTS; P.O. CYNTHIA FRYE; P.O. ROSA RAMOS; P/O PAUL 

GUERCIO; P/O JOHN DESHER; SUPERVISOR BRIAN MURPHY; C.O. JAMES 

DAMBACH; C.O. JOHN MCCLOSKEY; I.A.D. LIEUTENANT JOSEPH MARTIN; 

I.A.D. SERGEANT SUSAN GREEN; DETECTIVE BRIAN BOOS; DETECTIVE 

DAVIS; SERGEANT SEAN MCGLINN

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 2-09-cv-03016)

District Judge: Hon. Robert F. Kelly

__________

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

October 29, 2012

Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: November 01, 2012)

__________

OPINION OF THE COURT

__________

ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.
2

This pro se appeal by Mar-Lin Minatee requires us to decide whether the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania properly granted summary 

judgment in favor of the City of Philadelphia, its mayor, its police commissioner, and 

several detectives and police officers, after Minatee brought a malicious prosecution 

claim against them under 42 U.S.C § 1983.

I.

Because we write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and 

proceedings of this case, we will recite only those facts relevant to the issues of law 

discussed. 

Following an incident with two City of Philadelphia police officers, Minatee was 

arrested and charged with harassment, terroristic threats with intent to terrorize another, 

obstructing the administration of law, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct. In a 

criminal trial in the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, the Court found Minatee not guilty 

on all charges. Thereafter, Minatee filed a civil suit alleging malicious prosecution and 

excessive force, naming as defendants the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and its 

governor; the City of Philadelphia and its mayor; the Philadelphia Police Department and

its Commissioner; and multiple detectives and police officers.

1

Following discovery, the City of Philadelphia, its mayor, its police commissioner, 

and several of the detectives and police officers named in Minatee’s Complaint

(hereinafter “Appellees”) filed a motion for summary judgment on Minatee’s malicious 

prosecution claim. The District Court granted the motion. 

 

1 Although Minatee alleged only malicious prosecution, the Court liberally construed his 

Complaint to include claims of excessive force. Minatee’s excessive use of force claims

were tried before a jury. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, the Court granted a 

motion for directed verdict in favor of some defendants, and then, in accordance with the 

jury’s verdict, entered judgment in favor of the remaining defendants.
3

Anchoring Minatee’s contention that the District Court erred in granting summary 

judgment is the argument that he eventually was acquitted of all criminal charges brought 

against him. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees. 

II.

The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3). We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We exercise plenary review over a trial court’s grant of a motion for summary 

judgment and apply the same standard that the district court applies. Dilworth v. Metro. 

Life Ins. Co., 418 F.3d 345, 349 (3d Cir. 2005). All evidence must be viewed in the light 

most favorable to the non-moving party and all reasonable inferences drawn in his favor. 

Lawrence v. City of Phila., 527 F.3d 299, 310 (3d Cir. 2008). Summary judgment should 

be granted only when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant 

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 56(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

III.

To prove a claim for malicious prosecution brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a 

plaintiff must satisfy each of the following five elements: “(1) the defendants initiated a 

criminal proceeding; (2) the criminal proceeding ended in plaintiff’s favor; (3) the 

proceeding was initiated without probable cause; (4) the defendants acted maliciously or 

for a purpose other than bringing the plaintiff to justice; and (5) the plaintiff suffered 

deprivation of liberty consistent with the concept of seizure as a consequence of a legal 

proceeding.” Kossler v. Crisanti, 564 F.3d 181, 186 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc) (internal 

quotation marks and citations omitted).

We emphasize the elements because Minatee is proceeding pro se and bottoms his 

argument in the following phraseology: “[T]he court below[’s] decision . . . was 
4

inappropriate as Appellant was found not guilty on all charges brought by [the]

Defendants.” Brief for Appellant 1. The District Court, however, decided that probable 

cause existed to arrest Minatee on several charges, thereby barring a malicious

prosecution claim against any defendant. “[T]he establishment of probable cause as to 

any one charge [of several charges] is sufficient to defeat . . . Fourth Amendment 

claims,” including claims for malicious prosecution. Startzell v. City of Phila., 533 F.3d 

183, 204 n.14. (3d Cir. 2008).

A.

Based on the undisputed facts, we decide that probable cause existed for Minatee’s 

arrest. “Probable cause to arrest exists when the facts and the circumstances within the 

arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient in themselves to warrant a reasonable person 

to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person to be arrested.”

Merkle v. Upper Dublin Sch. Dist., 211 F.3d 782, 788 (3d Cir. 2000) (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted). The arresting officer must only reasonably believe at the 

time of the arrest that an offense is being committed, a significantly lower burden than 

proving guilt at trial. Wright v. City of Phila., 409 F.3d 595, 602 (3d Cir. 2005). Although 

the question of probable cause is generally a question for the jury, a district court may 

conclude on summary judgment “that probable cause exists as a matter of law if the 

evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, reasonably would not 

support a contrary factual finding.” Merkle, 211 F.3d at 788-789 (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

Importantly, the favorable termination and probable cause elements of a malicious 

prosecution claim are “distinct requirements . . . and therefore should not be conflated.” 

Kossler, 564 F.3d at 193. “[I]t is irrelevant to the probable cause analysis what crime a 
5

suspect is eventually charged with, or whether a person is later acquitted of the crime for 

which she or he was arrested.” Wright, 409 F.3d at 602 (citations omitted). Minatee’s 

argument that the District Court inappropriately granted summary judgment is totally 

foreclosed by the foregoing discussion in Wright. Likewise, his challenge to applying the 

teachings of Wright because of an alleged difference in the facts gets him nowhere. In

Wright this Court did not fashion a new rule of law, but rather we relied on the teachings 

of Michigan v. DeFillipo, 443 U.S. 31, 36 (1979) (“[T]he mere fact that the suspect is 

later acquitted is irrelevant . . . .”). “Probable cause need only exist as to [one of the] 

offense[s] that could be charged under the circumstances.” Reedy v. Evanson, 615 F.3d 

197, 211 (3d Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (quoting Barna v. City of Perth Amboy, 42 

F.3d 809, 819 (3d Cir. 1994).

Here, Minatee was charged with harassment, terroristic threats with intent to 

terrorize another, obstructing the administration of law, resisting arrest, and disorderly 

conduct. We now discuss certain of these offenses in the context of whether there was 

probable cause to make an arrest. It is not necessary to discuss the full panoply of charges

against Minatee.

B.

In Pennsylvania a person commits the crime of obstructing the administration of 

law when he “intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or 

other governmental function by force, violence, physical interference or obstacle, breach 

of official duty, or any other unlawful act . . . .” 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5101. Here, an officer of 

the Philadelphia Police Department explained to Minatee that the officers were deeming 

the encounter a “live stop” and confiscating the car because its owner, Minatee’s 
6

companion and a passenger in the car, had a suspended license.2 Minatee contested that 

the companion’s license was suspended and told the officers that he, not his companion,

had been driving the car. When a tow-truck arrived to take the car, Minatee went to the 

car and sat in the passenger seat to prevent it from being towed. After some time, Minatee 

got out of the car but remained close to it. Minatee continued to argue with the officers 

and admits yelling at one point.

3

Under the foregoing circumstances the police had probable cause to arrest 

Minatee, because they could have reasonably believed that an obstruction offense had 

been committed.

C.

Minatee was also charged with disorderly conduct. In Pennsylvania a person 

commits the offense of disorderly conduct when he or she:

with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or 

recklessly creating a risk thereof . . . (1) engages in fighting or threatening,

or in violent or tumultuous behavior; (2) makes unreasonable noise; (3) 

uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or (4) creates a 

hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no 

legitimate purpose of the actor.

18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5503. Words or acts rise to the level of disorderly conduct when “they 

cause or unjustifiably risk a public disturbance.” Startzell, 533 F.3d at 204 (internal 

 

2

“Live stop” is a Philadelphia Police Department program that enforces provisions of the 

Pennsylvania Vehicle Code. See 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 6309.2(a)(1). It requires law 

enforcement officers to “immobilize” or, “in the interest of public safety, direct that the 

vehicle be towed or stored” if it is operated “on a highway or traffic way of [the] 

Commonwealth [of Pennsylvania]” by a person whose operating privileges have been 

“suspended, revoked, canceled, recalled or disqualified or where the person is 

unlicensed.” Id.

3

These facts are taken from the District Court’s Memorandum dated September 9, 2011. 

The Memorandum states that all facts contained within were taken directly from 

Minatee’s own deposition unless otherwise noted.
7

quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, Minatee created a public disturbance after he 

double-parked a car on a public street, blocking the street to other traffic. He stated, 

“Y’all not taking shit,” and refused to step away from the car. He also admits to yelling at 

one point and to telling one officer, “I know we are going to rock and I want you #4902 

Ramos to throw the first punch.” Plaintiff’s Citizen Complaint 3. The police officers state 

that they interpreted this language as a threat. Thereupon one of the officers ordered 

Minatee to move to avoid the threat of being tasered. He continued to refuse to move and 

he was first tasered and then arrested.

Under the foregoing circumstances the police had probable cause to arrest 

Minatee, because they could have reasonably believed that Minatee’s conduct and 

language rose to the level of disorderly conduct.

D.

To prevail on a charge of malicious prosecution a plaintiff is required to prove that 

none of the charges were “initiated without probable cause.” Kossler, 564 F.3d at 186. 

The foregoing analysis demonstrated probable cause for the officers to believe certain 

offenses had been committed, thus vitiating plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim,

which requires a lack in probable cause for all the charges. Moreover, it bears repeating 

that “it is irrelevant to the probable cause analysis” that a “person is later acquitted of the 

crime for which she or he was arrested.” Wright, 409 F.3d at 602 (internal citations 

omitted).

II.

An alternative basis for affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment 

in favor of Appellees is that Minatee failed to introduce evidence that any defendant 

acted maliciously towards him as required in the teachings of Kossler. See 562 F.3d at 
8

186. This Court has previously described malice in some detail:

[T]he Supreme Court of Pennsylvania never has defined malice as meaning 

only spite. “Legal malice is not limited to motives of hatred or ill will, but 

may consist of defendant’s reckless and oppressive disregard of plaintiff’s 

rights.” . . . [M]alice can mean ill-will or the use of a prosecution for an 

extraneous purpose or a lack of belief in the guilt of the accused. . . . See 

also Restatement of Torts § 668, Comment d (1977) (defining malice as 

initiation of criminal proceedings for an improper purpose, which is further 

defined as when (1) the accuser does not believe in the guilt of the accused;

(2) the proceedings are initiated primarily because of hostility or ill will 

toward the accused; or (3) the proceedings are initiated for the purpose of 

obtaining a private advantage).

Lippay v. Christos, 996 F.2d 1490, 1503 (3d Cir. 1993). The District Court determined, 

and we agree, that “Plaintiff has produced no evidence whatsoever showing that any of 

the Defendants prosecuted him out of ill will[,] . . . lacked belief in the propriety of the 

prosecution or instituted the proceedings for an extraneous improper purpose.” District

Court Opinion 18.

* * * * *

We have considered all of the arguments advanced by the parties and conclude 

that no further discussion is necessary. The judgment of the District Court will be 

AFFIRMED.