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 11-8-2007 

# J ones v . Midd let own 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 . 06-3574

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 " J one s v . Middle t own" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 244. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/244NOT 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. 06- 3574 JO H N JO N E S , S R .; G A I L K . J O N ES, A p p e llan ts v. M ID D L E T O W N T O W N S H IP ; JO H N F E E N E Y , S g t. ; B R IA N R E E V E S , O ff icer; UNNAMED M I DDL E T OWN P OL I CE OF F I CE RS ; L OWER S OUT HAMP T ON TOW NSH I P; EDW AR D D ON NELLY , Chi e f; RA YM ON D W ELDI E, Det e c t i v e - Se r g e a n t ; M I CH AEL PENN I NG TON , Corp o r a l ; STEP HEN CA STLE , O f f ice r; a n d H is W if

e ; R A Y M O N D Y O U N G , O f f ice r; P E T E R L IE S E , C o m m u n ity P o lic in g C o o rd in a to r O f f ic e r; D IA N E G IB B O N S , B u c k s C o . D .A .; M A R C I A C O M PT O N , I ndi vi dual l yand i n t hei roffi ci al capa ci t i es 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. 05- cv- 03719 (H o n o rab le P etrese B . T u ck er) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember2, 2007 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, H A R D I M A N and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: N ovember8, 2007) OPI NI ON O F THE COURTIn th e ir o w n w o rd s, th e Jo n e se s a lleg e d th a t: 1 [A ] ft erhavi ng obs erved J ohn J ones , Sr . , and hi s s on atthe i nt er s ect i on of O l d L i ncol n H i ghw ayand B r ow ns vi l l e R oad . . . [i ] tw as obvi ous that C om pt on dr ove hervehi cl e i n a mannert o r ai s e the s us pi ci on of a mar ked T ow n W at ch vehi cl e part i ci pant ; thati s , s he then tr avel ed thr ough t he Pl ai nt i ffs ’ r es i dent i al nei ghborhood w i t houts t oppi ng atan unus ual hourof t he ni ght– i ncl udi ng pas tt he J ones ’ r es i dence s ever al t i m es – and then (c o n tin u e d ...) 2 P E R C U R I A M. A ppel l ant s J ohn J ones , Sr . and G ai l J ones fi l ed a c i vi l act i on pr o s e on J ul y18, 2005 i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of thei rfede r al cons t i tut i onal ci vi l r i ght s pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988. T he J ones es s ued M i ddl et ow n T ow ns hi p, Ser geantJ ohn Feeney , and O ffi cerB r i an R eeve s ( t he “M i ddl et ow n D efe ndant s ”) , L ow erSout hhampt on T ow ns hi p, C hi ef Edw ar d D onnel l y , D et ect i ve Ser geantR aym ond W el di e, C orpor al M i chae l Penni ngt on, O ffi cerSt ephen Cast l e, O ffi cerR aym ond Y oung, C om m uni t yPol i ci ng C o o rdin ator P eter L iese, an d L yn n C astl e (the “L o w er S o u thh am p ton D ef en d an ts”), B ucks C ount yD i s t r i ctA t t or neyD i ane G i bbons and M ar ci a C om pt on, al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of thei rr i ght s undert he Fi r s t , Second, Four t h, Fi fth, Si xth, E i ght h, N i nth, T hi r t eenth, and Four t eenth A m endment s i n connec t i on w i t h an arr es tand pr os ecut i on of M r . J ones for s t al ki ng. O n A ugus t31, 2002, atappr oxi m at el y1: 00 a. m . , J ones , i n hi s “Tow n W at ch” vehi cl e, del i ber at el yfol l ow ed M ar ci a C om pt on, and s he ca l l ed the pol i ce. W hen the 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 dr ove t ow ar d anothernei ghbor hood t hathous ed s eni orci t i zens . D efe ndant C om pt on t her ebyi nt ent i onal l ychos e a pa t h of tr avel thatavoi ded her father ’ s know n, arm ed pr es ence , as s i s t ance of the nea rbyL ow er Sout hampt on Pol i ce, and as s i s t ance of a mar ked patr ol vehi cl e al ong t he p a th o f tra v e l. C om pl ai nt , at¶ 5. 3 pol i ce a r r i ved, t heys ear ched J ones ’ vehi cl e and f ound w eapons . O n O ct ober20, 2002, J ones w as char ged bydefe ndantD et ect i ve Ser geantR aym ond W el di e w i t h a s i ngl e count of s t al ki ng R i char d C om pt on, J udyC om pt on and M ar ci a C om pt on i n vi ol at i on of the p re d e c e s s o r t o 1 8 P a . C o n s . S ta t. A n n . § 2 7 0 9 .1 . J o n e s w a s a rr e s te d o n O c to b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 2 . T he or i gi nal I nform at i on w as fi l ed on M ay22, 2003, and ther eaf t erD i s t r i ctA t t orney D i ane G i bbons fi l ed an A m ended I nform at i on tr i fur cat i ng the cha r ges , bas ed on the vi ct i m , i nt o t hr ee s epar at e count s of fi r s tdegr ee mi s demeanors t al ki ng. O n J ul y18, 2003, t he j ur yt r i al concl uded and J ones w as found gui l t yof s t al ki ng R i char d and J udy C om pt on, buthe w as acqui t t ed of s t al ki ng M ar ci a C om pt on. O n O ct ober14, 2003, J ones wa s s e n t e n c e d t o 1 0 y e a r s p r o b a t i o n . He a p p e a l e d h i s c o n v i c t i o n s u n s u c c e s s f u l l y . On O c to b e r 5 , 2 0 0 2 , the sta te s u p re m e c o u rt d e n ied a llo w a n c e o f a p p e a l. T he J ones es al l eged i n t hei r40- page c om pl ai ntthatthe arr es tw as fal s e and the prosecuti on m al i ci ou s and the produ ctof a c on spi racyam on g the defen dan t s. T heyal so as s er t ed comm on l aw caus es of ac t i on fors l anderand l i bel , among ot her s . T heys ought i nj unct i ve and de cl ar at or yr el i ef, as w el l as compensa t oryand puni t i ve damages and4

a tto rn e y s f

e e s. T h e d e f

e n d a n ts m o v e d to d ism iss th e c o m p lain t p u rsu a n t to F e d e ra l R u le of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) , on t he gr ound, among ot her s , thatthe compl ai ntw as barr ed byt he tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons appl i cabl e t o per s onal i nj uryact i ons , s ee 42 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 5524( 2) ; W i l s on v. G ar ci a, 471 U . S. 261 ( 1985) ( s t at e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons appl i es t o act i ons under42 U . S. C . § 1983) , or , i n t he ca s e of the l i bel and s l andercl ai m s , t he one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , 42 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 5524( 1) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tagr eed a nd gr ant ed the mot i ons on thi s bas i s i n an or derent er ed on J une 29, 2006. T he courtr eas oned thatt he eve nt s w hi ch form ed the bas i s of the compl ai nt occurr ed i n A ugus tand O ct ober2002, and the compl ai ntw as notfi l ed unt i l J ul y18, 2005. T he courtfur t herr eas oned that , t o t he ext entthatthe J ones es s oughtm oney damages as a r es ul tof the j ur yver di cton J ul y18, 2003, H eck v. H um phr ey , 512 U . S. 477 ( 1994) , barr ed the ac t i on beca us e M r . J ones w as convi ct ed of tw o of the thr ee c ount s of s t al ki ng and thos e tw o convi ct i ons have ne verbeen i nval i dat ed. T he J ones es have appea l ed. W e w i l l aff

i r m . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. “[W ] hen rul i ng on a def endant ' s m ot i on t o di s m i s s , a j udge mustacc eptas true al l of the fa ctual al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n t he compl ai nt . ” Eri cks on v. Par dus , 127 S. C t . 2197, 2200 ( 2007) ( ci t i ng B el l A t l ant i c C orp. v. T w om bl y , 127 S. C t . 1955, 1965 ( 2007) ) . T he courtm aycons i der cert ai n narr ow l ydefi ned types of m at er i al w i t houtconvert i ng the mot i on t o di s m i s s t o a s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on, s uch as a documentthati s i nt egr al t o orexpl i ci t l yr el i ed upon5

i n t he compl ai nt . I n r e R ockef el l erC ent erPr oper t i es , I nc. Secur i t i es L i t i g. , 184 F. 3d 280, 287 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . A cour tm ayal s o cons i deran “undi s put edl yauthent i c documentt hat a def endantat t ache s as an exhi bi tt o a mot i on t o di s m i s s i f the pl ai nt i ff' s cl ai m s ar e bas ed on t he document . ” Pens i on B enef i tG uar . C orp. v. W hi t e C ons ol . I ndus . , I nc. , 998 F. 2d 1192, 1196 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . I n t hi s cas e, thos e exhi bi t s pr oper l ycons i der ed i ncl uded the M i ddl et ow n T ow ns hi p I nci dentI nves t i gat i on R epor tfr om A ugus t31, the A m ended I nform at i on i n C om m onw eal th v. John Jone s , B ucks C ount yC r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 2336- 0 1 – 2 0 0 3 , the c ri m inal jud g m en t i n that ca se, an d the o rde r of the s tat e su p rem e c o u rt deny i ng al l ow ance of appe al . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der d ism issi n g a c o m p lai n t un d er R u le 12 (b)(6 ). S ee N am i v. Fa u v er, 82 F . 3 d 6 3 , 6 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). A s expl ai ned byt he D i s t r i ctC our t , the s ui ti s unt i m el yforanyw r ong t hatoccurr ed pr i ort o J ul y18, 2003; t hus everycountand/ orcaus e of a ct i on i s unt i m el yexce ptfort he m ali ciou s p rose cu ti o n claim . S ee K o st v. K o za k iew icz, 1 F . 3 d 1 7 6 , 1 8 9 -90 (3d C ir . 1993) ( Penns y l vani a’ s t w o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons appl i es t o cl ai m s forvi ol at i ons of cons t i tut i onal r i ght s pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983) . T he J ones es cont end i n t hei rbr i ef t hatt hei ract i on i s pr i m ar i l yone forcons pi r acy , and thus i ti s notbarr ed bec aus e the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons does notbegi n t o run unt i l comm i s s i on of the l as tover tact , w hi ch th e yb e liev e is th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e trial o n Ju ly1 8 , 2 0 0 3 . W e d o n o t ag re e . T h e sta tu te of l i m i t at i ons begi ns t o run att he t i m e the cl ai m acc rues ; t i m e- barr ed cl ai m s cannotbeO u r de cisi o n in M it ch ell v . G u zick , 1 3 8 F ed . A p p x . 4 9 6 , 5 0 1 n . 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), 2 u p o n w h i c h t h e J o n e s e s r e l y, i s n o tt o th e c o n t r a r y. 6 r es ur r ect ed bybei ng aggr egat ed and l abel ed “c ont i nui ng vi ol at i ons . ” See O ’ C onnorv. C i t yof N ew ark, 440 F. 3d 125, 129 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . E xceptforthe mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on 2 c laim , the c laim s a c c ru e d n o late r th a n O c to b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 2 , the d a te o f Jo n e s’ a rre st. T ur ni ng t o t he mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m , t o pr evai l under§ 1983 w hen the cl ai m i s r ai s ed undert he Four t h A m endment , a pl ai nt i ff musts how that : ( 1) the defe ndant s i ni t i at ed a c r i m i nal pr ocee di ng; ( 2) the cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng ended i n t he pl ai nt i ff' s favor ; ( 3) t he def endant s i ni t i at ed the pr ocee di ng w i t houtpr obabl e ca us e; ( 4) th e d e f e n d a n ts a c ted m a licio u slyo r f o r a p u rp o se o th e r th a n b rin g in g th e p lain tiff to j us t i ce; and ( 5) t he pl ai nt i ff s uffe r ed a de pr i vat i on of l i ber t yas a cons equenc e of the crim inal p roc ee d ing . E stat e o f S m ith v . M ara sco , 3 1 8 F . 3 d 4 9 7 , 5 2 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). In H eck v. H um phr ey , 512 U . S. 477, how ever , the Supr eme C our thel d t hatan ac t i on for damages undert he ci vi l r i ght s l aw s cannotbe mai nt ai ned i f “a j udgm enti n favorof the pl ai nt i ff w oul d nece s s ar i l yi m pl yt he i nval i di t yof hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence . . . unl es s t he pl ai nt i ff c an demonstr at e thatt he convi ct i on ors ent ence has al r eadybeen i nval i dat ed. ” I d. at487. T he J ones es cont end on appe al thatM r . J ones ’ acqui t t al on t he thi r d countof s ta lk in g in v o lv in g M a rc ia C o m p to n e s ta b lis h e s a c o g n iz a b le m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n c a s e . T hus , t he fi r s tques t i on pr es ent ed bythi s appea l i s w hetherthe J ones es have s at i s fi ed H e c k ’s f a v o ra b le te rm in a tio n ru le .R i char d and J udyC om pt on ar e M ar ci a’ s par ent s . W e do notknow w hyJ ones w as 3 char ged w i t h s t al ki ng t hem but t he r eas on i s notr el evantt o ourdeci s i on i ns ofaras the s t al ki ng convi ct i ons r el at i ng t o t hem have neverbeen i nval i dat ed. 7 M r . J ones w as convi ct ed of s t al ki ng tw o m ember s of the C om pt on fami l ybut acqui t t ed i n t he ca s e of M ar ci a C om pt on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tappea r s t o have c oncl uded 3 t hatt he thr ee s t al ki ng char ges w er e i nextr i cabl yi nt ert w i ned – thr ee c ount s of s t al ki ng agai ns tm ember s of the s ame fam i l yw ho r es i de t ogether– s uch thatacqui t t al on one but n o t th e m ajorityo f th e c h arg es d o es n o t sat isfyH ec k ’s fa v o rab le t erm ination rule. W e a re n o t so su re . C e rta in lyif th e A m e n d e d In f

o rm a tio n c h a rg in g Jo n e s w ith th re e se p a ra te co u n ts of stal k ing w as b ase d o n the s am e se t of fa cts, w e m igh t agre e tha t th e c o u n ts w ere in te rt w in e d , s e e B e rm a n v . T u re c k i, 8 8 5 F . S u p p . 5 2 8 , 5 3 2 n .9 (S .D .N .Y . 1 9 9 5 ). H ow ever , not hi ng att hi s s t age of t he pr ocee di ngs s ugges t s thatthi s i s the ca s e. See I n r e: B ur l i ngt on C oatFact or ySecur i t i es L i t i g. , 114 F. 3d 1410, 1424- 25 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( i n ru lin g o n m o tio n to d ism iss , d istric t co u rt is n o t p e rm itt e d to g o b e y o n d f a c ts a lleg e d in C o m p la in t a n d d o c u m e n ts o n w h ic h c la im s m a d e th e re in a re b a s e d ). T he eve nt s of A ugus t31, w hi ch form the bas i s of the J ones es ’ compl ai nt , do not appea rt o i nvol ve R i char d and J udyC om pt on. T he fa ctthattheyar e fa m i l ym ember s and r es i de t ogetheri s i nadequa t e t o s how thatthe evi dence r el i ed upon t o pr os ecut e thr ee se p a ra te c o u n ts o f

sta lk in g w a s e ss e n tiallyth e sa m e in a ll th re e c a se . O n th e c o n tra ry , it a p p e a rs th a t M a rc ia w a s a lo n e o n th e n ig h t o f A u g u s t 3 1 w h e n M r. J o n e s f o llo w e d h e r. W e th u s c a n n o t sa ya t th is s tag e in th e lit ig a tio n th a t a ju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f Jo n e s in th is8

civil case w o u ld n ec essa ri lyim p lythe in v ali d ityo f h is co n v ict ion s fo r st alkin g R icha rd and J udyC om pt on. H eck, 512 U . S. at487. A s s um i ng, ar guendo, t hatt he J ones es have s at i s fi ed H eck’ s favor abl e t erm i nat i on rul e, w e nextcons i derw hethert her e w as pr obabl e ca us e t o i ni t i at e the s t al ki ng p ro c e e d in g s in c o n n e c tio n w ith M a rc ia C o m p to n . M a ra sc o , 3 1 8 F .3 d a t 5 2 1 . P ro b a b le caus e t o arr es texi s t s w hen the fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s ar e s uffi ci entt o j us t i fya prudent o f f ice r in b e liev in g th a t th e su sp e c t h a d c o m m itt e d o r w a s c o m m itt in g a c rim e . G e rste in v. Pugh, 420 U . S. 103, 111 ( 1975) . W e l ook atthe t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s and us e a comm on s ens e appr oach i n as s es s i ng the i s s ue of pr obabl e ca us e. U ni t ed St at es v. G l as s er , 750 F. 2d 1197, 1205 ( 3d C i r . 1984) . B eca us e pr obabl e ca us e i s a l es s exac t i ng s t andar d t han pr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , the abs ence of pr obabl e ca us e i s not es t abl i s hed byan adj udi cat i on of i nnocenc e i n t he cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng. C ol eman v. B u rne tt , 4 7 7 F . 2 d 1 1 8 7 , 1 2 0 1 -02 (D . C . C ir . 1 9 7 3 ). U ndert he curr entPenns y l vani a s t atut e ( and the pr edec es s ors t atut e underw hi ch J ones pr es um abl yi ni t i al l yw as char ged i s notdi ffe r enti n t hi s r es pect ) , a fi r s tdegr ee m isd e m e a n o r sta lk in g v io latio n o c c u rs w h e n a p e rso n e ith e r: (a)(1) e n g ag es in a c o u rse o f c o n d u ct or rep ea tedlyco m m it s ac ts t o w ard a n o t h e rp e r s o n , i n c l u d i n g f o l l o w i n g th e p e r s o n w i t h o u tp r o p e ra u t h o r i t y, underci r cumst ance s w hi ch demonstr at e ei t heran i nt entt o pl ace s uch other per s on i n r eas onabl e fe arof bodi l yi nj uryort o caus e s ubs t ant i al emot i onal di s t r es s t o s uch otherper s on; or ( 2) engage s i n a cour s e of c onductorr epea t edl ycomm uni cat es t o another per s on underci r cumst ance s w hi ch demonstr at e orcomm uni cat e ei t heranA ccor di ng t o t he M i ddl et ow n T ow ns hi p Pol i ce D epart m entI nci dentI nves t i gat i on 4 R e p o rt, S u p p . A p p . 2 -4 , o n A u g u st 3 1 , 2 0 0 2 , at a p p ro x im a tely1 :0 0 a .m ., M a rc ia C om pt on w as dr i vi ng hom e w hen s he not i ced a truck dr i ven byM r . J ones w i t h t he w or ds “t ow n w at ch” on i tfol l ow i ng her . She m ade a s er i es of turns t o el ude hi m , butJ ones cont i nued t o fol l ow her . She t el ephoned the M i ddl et ow n T ow ns hi p pol i ce f oras s i s t ance , (c o n tin u e d ...) 9 in ten t to p lac e su c h o th e r p e rso n in re a so n a b le f e a r o f b o d ilyin

ju ryo r to caus e s ubs t ant i al emot i onal di s t r es s t o s uch otherper s on. 18 P a. C on s. S t at . A nn . § 2 70 9. 1(a) . “C ou rs e of c on du ct ” i s defi ned as: A pat t ern of ac t i ons composed of m or e than one act overa per i od of t i m e, how evers hor t , evi denci ng a cont i nui t yof conduc t . . . . A ct s i ndi cat i ng a cour s e of c onductw hi ch occ uri n m or e than one j ur i s di ct i on m aybe us ed by anyot herj ur i s di ct i on i n w hi ch an a ctoccurr ed as evi dence of a c ont i nui ng p a ttern o f

c o n d u c t o r a c o u rse o f

c o n d u c t. 18 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 2709. 1( f) ( emphasi s added) . A ccor di ngl y , a s t al ki ng char ge c a n n o t b e b a s e d o n a s in g le a c t. W e conc l ude, how ever , t hatt hos e def endant s , i ncl udi ng Ser geantW el di e, Ser geant Feeney , O ffi cerR eeve s , and pos s i bl yot her s , w ho w er e i nvol ved i n arr es t i ng J ones for s t al ki ng and i n char gi ng hi m w i t h one c o u n t o f sta lk in g R ich a rd , Ju d ya n d M a rc ia C om pt on, had the r equi r ed pr obabl e ca us e, and, ther efor e, an ac t i on of m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cannotbe mai nt ai ned aga i ns tthem. T he eve nt s of A ugus t31 i nvol vi ng M ar ci a C om pt on cons t i tut e “f ol l ow i ng [another ] per s on w i t houtpr operauthor i t y , under c irc u m sta n c e s w h ich d e m o n stra te e ith e r a n in ten t to p lac e su c h o th e r p e rso n in re a so n a b le fea rof bodi l yi nj ur yort o caus e s ubs t ant i al emot i onal di s t r es s t o s uch otherper s on. ” 18 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 2709. 1( a) ( 1) . I n addi t i on, the j uryfound J ones gui l t yof s t al ki ng 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 an d an o ff

icer resp o n d ed an d p u ll ed Jo n es o v er. T he M i ddl et ow n T ow ns hi p appel l ees have a s s ert ed thats om e of the eve nt s ati s s ue 5 d a te b a c k to M a y2 0 , 2 0 0 0 . (A p p e lle e s ’ B ri e f , a t 2 0 .) T he appe l l ees have a s s er t ed i n t hei rbr i efs thatJ ones w as acqui t t ed of s t al ki ng 6 M a rc ia C o m p to n b e c a u se th e “ c o u rse o f c o n d u c t” in v o lv e d o n lyo n e a c t. 10 bot h R i char d and J udyC om pt on and thos e convi ct i ons have notbeen ove r turned. C f. M ont om eryv. D e Si m one, 159 F. 3d 120, 124 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( hol di ng thatpr es um pt i on of pr obabl e ca us e i n s ect i on 1983 act i on on s ol e bas i s of m uni ci pal convi ct i on thathas been over tur ned underm i nes purpos e of s t atut e buts ugges t i ng thatpr es um pt i on does not offe nd w her e convi ct i on has notbeen ove r turned) . T hus ther e had t o have be en other act s. 5 A lth o u g h w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e re w a s p ro b a b le c a u se to c h a rg e Jo n e s w ith a sin g le c o u n t o f sta lk in g th re e se p a ra te p e o p le, th e e x iste n c e o f p ro b a b le c a u se to c h a rg e h im dis app eared on ce t he si ng l e cou nt w as tri furcat ed b ased on the v i ct i m . T hu s, w e m ust s e p a ra te ly ad d re s s th e m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n c la im a g a in s t D is tr ic t A tto rn e yG ib b o n s . She al one w as r es pons i bl e fortur ni ng a s i ngl e countof s t al ki ng thr ee pe opl e i nt o t hr ee s epar at e count s . W i t h r es pectt o t he counti nvol vi ng M ar ci a C om pt on, w e ca nnot con cl ud e t hat pr ob able cause exi st ed b ecause ther e w as onlyon e act , the ev ents of A ug ust 31, and the s t atut e pl ai nl yr equi r es t w o. W e r ece nt l yhel d i n J ohns on v. K norr , 477 F. 3d 6 7 5 , 8 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ), th a t a d e f e n d a n t w h o in iti a tes c rim in a l p ro c e e d in g s o n m u lti p le char ges i s noti ns ul at ed i n a mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on cas e s i m pl ybeca us e one of the cha r ges11

w a s ju stif

ied , an d th a t a m a licio u s p ro se c u tio n c laim w a s n o t d e f e a ted a s to th o se c o u n ts w her e ther e w as no fi ndi ng of pr obabl e ca us e. W e not ed ourconce r n t hatl aw enfor cementoffi cer s m i ghtbe pi l i ng on char ges w her e ther e w as no foundat i on fordoi ng s o. I d. at84. M or eover , t he mer e fa ctthatJ ones w as hel d overfortr i al fol l ow i ng a p re lim in a ryh e a rin g d o e s n o t, as th e a p p e llee s h a v e a rg u e d , sh ield a d e f e n d a n t f ro m su it, M o n tog o m ery , 1 5 9 F . 3 d 1 2 0 (rejecti n g reb u tt ab le pre su m p ti o n o f p rob ab le ca u se w h ere p lai n ti ff ac q u itted in d e n o v o tr ial ). Al t h o u g h , f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

ru l i n g o n a mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s th e c o mp l a i n t , we a s s u me t hatt he D i s t r i ctA t t or neyl acke d pr obabl e ca us e t o s epar at el ychar ge J ones w i t h s t al ki ng M ar ci a C om pt on i n vi ol at i on of 18 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 2709. 1, and as s um e thatthe o th e r c o n d iti o n s f

o r m a in tain in g su it are m e t, M a ra sc o , 3 1 8 F .3 d a t 5 2 1 (to p re v a il i n m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on act i on, pl ai nt i ff a l s o m us ts how thatdefe ndantact ed mal i ci ous l yor fora purpos e othert han br i ngi ng t he pl ai nt i ff t o j us t i ce) , w e mustconcl ude thatD i s t r i ct A t t or neyG i bbons i s abs ol ut el yi m m uni zed f r om a s ui tfordamages . I m bl erv. Pachtm an, 4 2 4 U .S . 4 0 9 , 4 2 0 (1 9 7 6 ). S h e a c ted w ith in th e sc o p e o f h e r d u ties a s a p ro se c u to r in fi l i ng t he A m ended I nform at i on t hatm ul t i pl i ed the cha r ges , and the dec i s i on w hetheror nott o i ni t i at e orpr os ecut e a c as e i s compl et el ydi s cr et i onary . I d. A l t hough the D i s t r i ct C our tdi d notr eac h t hi s i s s ue, w e ar e fr ee t o aff i r m the j udgm enton anybas i s w hi ch fi nds su p p o rtin the rec o rd. S ee B ern it sk yv . U n it ed S tat es, 62 0 F . 2 d 9 4 8 , 9 5 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 0 ).12

W e w ill a f

f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt d ism iss in g th e c o m p lain t u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b)(6 ).