2009 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 7-2-2009 

# C ra wford v . Frimel 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 . 07-3452

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_2009

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 2009 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 " C r a wfor d v . F rimel " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1083. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1083NOT 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- 3452 CA RL DWAYNE CR AWF OR D, A ppel l ant

v. E D W A R D M . F R IM E L ; V IT O D . R O S E L L I; KEI TH R . HO LDSW OR TH; M I CH AEL C AR BO NELL; KE VI N M CS HANE ; J AM E S R. M E L I NS ON 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 2: 05- cv- 00118) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Fr eda W ol fs on Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y1, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed J ul y02, 2009)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM A p p ell an t C arl D w ay n e C raw fo rd, a f ed era l pri so n er, ap p ea ls th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s or derof M ar ch 19, 2007, deny i ng hi s m ot i ons forl eave t o amend t he compl ai ntand forC r a w f o r d w a s tr i e d a n d a c q u i t t e d o f th e c h a r g e s r e l a t i n g t o th e b a n k r o b b e ry. 1 2 a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l, an d th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r o f Ju n e 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , d ism iss in g h is c o m p lain t. F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill a f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. I . B ackgr ound B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e w ill se t f o rth b rie f

lyo n ly tho se fact s necessaryt o o ur anal y si s. O n Jan u ary1 6 , 2 0 0 3 , tw o b lack m ales d isgu ised in tr ad it ion al fe m ale M u sli m g arb co m m itted a n arm ed rob b eryat a b an k loca ted a fe w b lock s aw ayfro m C raw fo rd’s apart m ent . W i tnes s es obs erved the perpetr at or s l eave the s cene i n a gr een Chevr ol et M ali b u . A fter o ff

icers loc ated the M ali b u an d estab li sh ed su rve il lanc e o f it , C raw fo rd w as obs erved dr i vi ng anotheri ndi vi dual , L uzerne Faul kner , t o the M al i bu. A bank empl oy ee i dent i fi ed C r aw for d as havi ng i nqui r ed a f ew day s ear l i eraboutopeni ng an acc ount ; the empl oy ee f ound hi m s us pi ci ous beca us e C r aw for d di d notpr ovi de i dent i fi cat i on and w as as ki ng s tr ange que s t i ons . C r aw for d w as arr es t ed byagent s of the F e d e ra l B u re a u o f

In v e s tig a tio n (“ F B I” ) o n s u s p ic io n o f a rm e d b a n k ro b b e ry. T he nextday , FB I agent s s oughta w arr anti n or dert o s ear ch C r aw for d’ s apart m ent forevi dence of the bank r obbery , i ncl udi ng femal e M us l i m cl othi ng, fi r earm s , and bank w r apper s . M agi s tr at e J udge J ames M el i ns on i s s ued the w arr ant . T he s ear ch y i el ded a g u n , il lega l dru g s, an d d rug p ara p h ern ali a. B ase d o n the re su lt s o f th e se arc h , C raw fo rd w as charged w i th d rug and fi rearm -r el at ed cri m es. 1O n appea l , C r aw for d r ai s es w hatappea rt o be new cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s , i ncl udi ng, 2 forexampl e, thatthe D efe ndant s vi ol at ed hi s E qual Pr ot ect i on r i ght s and empl oy ed excessi ve fo rce agai nsthim . H ow ever, his B i ven s com plai nt di d n ot as sertanyof these c la im s a n d it d o e s n o t a p p e a r t h a t h e ra is e d th e s e a rg u m e n ts b e f o re th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . A bs entcompel l i ng ci r cumst ance s , thi s C our tgener al l ydecl i nes t o cons i deri s s ues r ai s ed f o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l. R o ss v . H o tel E m p lo y e e s a n d R e sta u ra n t E m p lo y e e s In t. U n ion , 2 6 6 F . 3 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). 3 A thi s cr i m i nal tr i al , C r aw for d s oughtt o s uppr es s the evi dence gather ed dur i ng t he s ear ch of hi s apart m ent . H e ar gued thatthe FB I l acke d pr obabl e ca us e forhi s arr es tand the s ear ch. A ft era hea r i ng, the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed C r aw for d’ s m ot i on, hol di ng that there w as p rob ab le ca u se f o r bo th the arrest an d the s ea rch . O n N o v em b er 5 , 2 0 0 4 , a jury convi ct ed C r aw for d. T hi s C our tuphel d the convi ct i on on di r ectappea l , aff i r m i ng that ther e w as pr obabl e ca us e forboth t he arr es tand the s ear ch. T he Supr eme C our tdeni ed C ra w f o rd ’s p e titio n f

o r a w ri t o f

c e rt io ra ri . O n D ece m ber24, 2004, w hi l e hi s di r ectappea l w as pendi ng, C r aw for d exec ut ed a pr o s e compl ai ntunderB i vens v. Si x U nknow n N amed A gent s of Fed. B ur eau of N ar cot i cs , 403 U . S. 388 ( 1971) , agai ns tfi ve FB I agent s and M agi s tr at e J udge M el i ns on, cl ai m i ng thattheycons pi r ed t o vi ol at e hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s underthe Four th and Four t eenth A m endment s . Speci fi cal l y , he al l eged thatther e w as no pr obabl e ca us e for the arr es tand the s ear ch of hi s apart m ent . I n addi t i on t o m onet arydamages , he s ought 2 im m e d ia te re le a s e f

ro m p ri s o n a n d e x p u n g e m e n t o f h is c ri m in a l r e c o rd . O n A u g u st 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 , C ra w f o rd f iled a m o tio n p u rsu a n t to F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P rocedu re 15, seeki ng t o am end his com plai nt i n o rdert o ad d ad dit i on al defe nd ants ,Th e Di s tr i c tCo u r td i d n o ts t a t e i t s r e a s o n s f o rd i s mi s s i n g th e u n l a wf u l a rr e s tc l a i m, 3 a lth o u g h D e f

e n d a n ts h a d a rg u e d in th e ir m o tio n to d ism iss th a t th e u n law f u l ar re st c laim w a s a lso b a rre d b yH e c k a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. 4 i ncl udi ng the D i s tr i ctC our tJ udge w ho pr es i ded overhi s cr i m i nal tr i al , the A s s i s t ant U ni t ed St at es A t t orneyw ho pr os ecut ed hi m , and s ever al m or e FB I agent s . H e al s o fi l ed a m o tio n f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l. O n M a rc h 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 , the D istric t C o u rt d e n ied b o th m o ti o n s. T h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied a p p o intm en t of co u n sel p ri m aril yb ec au se C raw fo rd fai l ed t o s how thathi s cl ai m s had ar guabl e mer i t . I n deny i ng l eave t o amend, the D i s tr i ct C our texpl ai ned thatthe cl ai m s agai ns tthe pr opos ed new defe ndant s w er e t i m e- barr ed beca us e theyw er e fi l ed more than thr ee y ear s aft erthe al l egedl yunl aw ful s ear ch. T he cl ai m s di d notr el at e bac k t o t he dat e of the or i gi nal fi l i ng beca us e the mot i on t o amend w a s s u b m itt e d m o re th a n 1 2 0 d a y s a f ter th e c o m p lain t w a s f

iled a n d th e n e w d e f

e n d a n ts w er e notgi ven not i ce thatan ac t i on w oul d be br oughtagai ns tthem. I n addi t i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tobs erved thatC r aw for d di d notpr ovi de anyr eas on w hyhe di d noti dent i fy th e a d d itio n a l d e f

e n d a n ts a t a n e a rl ie r d a te . D efe ndant s m oved t o di s m i s s the compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m . O n J une 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th e d ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n . T h e D istri ct C o u rt concl uded thatC r aw for d’ s chal l enge t o the l egal i tyof the s ear ch of hi s apart m entw as b a rre d u n d e r H e c k v . H u m p h re y , 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 (1 9 9 4 ), an d b yc o llate ra l es to p p e l. 3 T hi s t i m el ypr o s e appe al fol l ow ed.5 II. A n a ly sis We f i r s ta d d r e s s th e D i s tr i c tC o u r t ’ s o r d e rd i s m i s s i n g C r a w f o r d ’ s c o m p l a i n t . We exer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der . See W es t on v. Penns y l vani a, 251 F . 3 d 4 2 0 , 4 2 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). U nderH eck, a pr i s onerm aynotbr i ng a ci vi l r i ght s s ui ti f i t s s ucce s s w oul d r ender i nval i d a convi ct i on thathas notbeen “ r ever s ed on di r ectappea l , expunged byexec ut i ve o rde r, d ec lared inv ali d b ya state tri b u n al . . . o r ca ll ed into q u esti o n b ya f ed era l cou rt ’s is s u a n c e o f

a w ri t o f h a b e a s c o rp u s .” H e c k , 5 1 2 U .S . a t 4 8 7 ; s e e a ls o L o ra -P e n a v . F .B .I., 529 F. 3d 503, 506 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( acknow l edgi ng thatH eck appl i es t o B i vens cl ai m s ) . I n det erm i ni ng w hethera Four th A m endmentcl ai m i s s ubj ectt o H eck, a di s tr i ct courtm us tas s es s w hetherthe al l egat i ons of cons t i tut i onal err ornece s s ar i l yi m pl ythe i nval i di tyof the convi ct i on ors ent ence . See G i bs on v. Super i nt endentof N . J D ep’ tof L a w a n d P u b lic S a f

e ty

– D iv . o f

S tate P o lice , 4 1 1 F .3 d 4 2 7 , 4 4 8 -4 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), ce rt. d en ied, 54 7 U . S . 1 0 3 5 (20 0 6 ). O u r rev iew o f th e re co rd c o n firm s the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t C ra w f o rd ’s c la im s n e c e s s a ri ly im p ly th e in v a lid ity o f h is c o n v ic tio n . T he fa ct s i m pli cat i ng C raw ford i n the ban k robb erygav e ri se t o the probab l e cause t o arr es thi m on s us pi ci on of bank r obberyand t o s ear ch hi s apart m ent . B utforthe s ear ch of hi s apart m ent , the gun, drugs , and drug par aphernal i a under l y i ng hi s drug convi ct i on w oul d nothave be en s ei zed. I f the s ei zed i t ems w er e t o be s uppr es s ed byr eas on of the i l l egal i tyof the s ear ch, the convi ct i on coul d nots t and. I ndeed, C r aw for d expr es s l ys eeksSuch r el i ef i s notavai l abl e i n a ci vi l r i ght s act i on. 4 V a rio u s c o u rts h a v e a c k n o w led g e d th a t co llate ra l es to p p e l m a yb e a ss e rte d to 5 pr ecl ude a de fens e t o a B i vens cl ai m . See, e. g. , M atthew s v. M aca nas , 990 F. 2d 467, 468 ( 9th Ci r . 19 93 ) , a br og a t e d o n o the rgr ou nd s a s s t a t e d i n Pa s c ua l v. M a t s umur a , 16 5 F. S u p p . 2 d 1 1 4 9 , 1 1 5 1 (D . H aw . 2 0 0 1 ); S ch ere r v. B alke m a, 84 0 F . 2 d 4 3 7 , 4 4 3 (7th C ir . 1988) ; s ee a l s o A l l en v. M cC urr y , 449 U . S. 90, 105 ( 1980) ( hol di ng thatcol l at er al es t oppel i s a def

ens e t o a Four th A m endmentcl ai m br oughtunder§ 1983 w her e the i s s ue u n d e rl y in g th e c la im w a s p re v io u s ly litig a te d in a s ta te h a b e a s p ro c e e d in g ). 6 t o overturn hi s convi ct i on thr ough hi s B i vens act i on. B eca us e C r aw for d’ s compl ai nt 4 d ire c tlya ttac k s th e f

a c tu a l b a sis f

o r h is c o n v ictio n , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d is c re tio n in c o n c lu d in g th a t it is b a rr e d b yH e c k . In a d d itio n , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt f o u n d th e c la im s b a rr e d b yc o lla te ra l e s to p p e l. C o llate ra l es to p p e l, or iss u e p re c lu sio n , p ro v id e s th a t “[ w ]h e n a n iss u e o f f a c t o r la w is a c tu a llylit ig a ted a n d d e ter m in e d b ya v a lid a n d f in a l ju d g m e n t, an d th e d e ter m in a tio n is es s ent i al t o t he j udgm ent , the det erm i nat i on i s concl us i ve i n a s ubs equentact i on betw een the part i es , w hetheron t he s ame ora di ffe r entcl ai m . ” J ean A l exande rC os m et i cs v. L ’ O r eal U SA , 458 F. 3d 244, 249 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng R es t at ement( Second) of Ju d g m en ts § 2 7 (19 8 2 )). 5 O n appea l , C r aw for d ar gues thatther e w as no pr obabl e ca us e forhi s arr es tand the s ear ch of hi s apart m ent . C r aw for d pr evi ous l yand uns ucce s s ful l yl i t i gat ed thes e i s s ues d u rin g th e c o u rse o f

h is c rim in a l p ro c e e d in g s in h is m o tio n to su p p re ss . S e e T ra n sc rip t, J an. 6, 2004, at38- 39. O n di r ectappea l , C r aw for d agai n ar gued thatther e w as no p rob ab le ca u se f

o r th e a rrest an d sea rch . A g ain, th is C o u rtaf firm ed that “[ t] h e re co rdT h e F B I a g e n ts w e re : M a rx , P e lcz a r, C ro w ley, S c a n z a n o , K itzin g e r, an d S tew a rt. 6 I n hi s br i ef, C r aw for d ar gues thathe di d noti ncl ude thes e def endant s atthe out s et 7 beca us e he “ uncons ci ous l yover l ooked both i s s ues thatar e i m per at i ve w hi l e has t i l ytry i ng to f ile h is c iv il righ ts c o m p lain t.” A lth o u g h C ra w f o rd in iti a ted h is B iv e n s a c tio n in e a rly 2005 and di d notfi l e hi s m ot i on t o amend unt i l A ugus t2006, hi s expl anat i on forthe del ay i s that“he f

or gott o fi l e thi s M ot i on beca us e appe l l anthad otheri s s ues occurr i ng. ” 7 r evea l s thatther e w as pr obabl e ca us e forboth the arr es tand the s ubs equents ear ch of the apart m ent. ” U nit ed S t at es v. C raw ford, C . A . N o. 04 -4249 (3d C i r. O ct . 20 , 20 05 ). T hu s, C ra w f o rd is p re c lu d e d f

ro m p u rsu in g th e p ro b a b le c a u se iss u e in h is B iv e n s c o m p lain t. W e n e x t ex a m in e th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f C ra w f o rd ’s m o tio n s f

o r le a v e to amend hi s compl ai ntand forappoi nt m entof couns el . W e r evi ew both deci s i ons for abus e of di s cr et i on. See Lake v. A rnol d, 232 F. 3d 360, 373 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ; T abr on v. G ra c e , 6 F .3 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 5 n .4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). I n hi s m ot i on t o amend, C r aw for d s oughtt o “add[ ] t o the fr ontof c o m p lain t/ac tio n ” th e n a m e s o f six F B I a g e n ts w h o se n a m e s C ra w f o rd h a d p re v io u sly m ent i oned onl yi n t he bodyof hi s compl ai nt . H e al s o s oughtt o add tw o “new addi t i onal 6 defe ndant s /w i tnes s es ” – s peci fi cal l y , D i s tr i ctJ udge M cLaughl i n, w ho had pr es i ded over C r aw for d’ s cr i m i nal tr i al , and A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orneyC hun, w ho had r epr es ent ed the G overnm enti n pr os ecut i ng C r aw for d’ s cr i m i nal cas e. C r aw for d di d not 7 seek t o rai se anyadd i t i on al or di fferentl egal theo ri es agai nstthese or anydefe nd ants . Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 15( a) pr ovi des thatl eave t o amend a pl eadi ng “sh all b e f

ree lyg iven w h en justi ce so req u ir es.” S ee F ed . R . C iv. P. 15 (a). H o w ev er,8

l eave t o amend need notbe gr ant ed w her e amendm entw oul d be fut i l e. See G r ay s on v. M ayvi ew St at e H os p. , 293 F. 3d 103, 111 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ; Shane v. Fauver , 213 F. 3d 113, 1 1 6 -1 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). A s p re v io u slyd isc u ss e d , C ra w f o rd ’s c laim s w e re p ro p e rly d ism iss e d a s b a rre d b yH e c k a n d b yc o llate ra l es to p p e l. A d d in g a d d iti o n a l d e f e n d a n ts w o u ld h a v e n o im p a c t u p o n th is o u tco m e . T h u s, C ra w f o rd ’s r e q u e ste d a m e n d m e n t w o u ld b e f u til e . S e e D e n n is v . S p a rk s, 4 4 9 U .S . 2 4 , 2 7 (1 9 8 0 ) (e x p lain in g th a t ju d g e s g e n e ra lly have a bs ol ut e i m m uni tyforthe j udi ci al act i ons t aken i n the cour s e of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs ) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng C r aw for d l eave to a m e n d h is c o m p la in t to a d d a d d itio n a l d e f e n d a n ts . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt a ls o d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in d e c lin in g to a p p o in t c o u n s e l. C r aw for d fai l ed t o es t abl i s h the thr es hol d T abr on cons i der at i on: thathi s cas e l i kel yhad m er i t . See Tabr on, 6 F. 3d at155. N o r emai ni ng T abr on cons i der at i on m andat ed a d if f e re n t r e s u lt. S e e id . a t 1 5 6 . Fi nal l y , C r aw for d has fi l ed a mot i on i n thi s C our t , s eeki ng a def aul tj udgm ent agai ns tA ppel l ees forfai l ur e t o s ubm i ta s uppl ement al appendi x. Such r el i ef i s not avai l abl e underthe fe der al rul es . M or eover , the docke tr efl ect s thatA ppel l ees fi l ed a s u p p le m e n ta l a p p e n d ix o n J a n u a ry 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 , a n d s e rv e d a c o p yu p o n C ra w f o rd v ia m a il. W e w i l l denythe mot i on. I I I . C oncl us i on F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.