2008 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 Third C irc uit 3-18-2008 

# P i skanin v . H amme r P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2518

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://di git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 2008 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " P i skanin v

. H amme r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1425. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/1425DL D- 7 9 NOT 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- 2518 M I CH AE L J . P I S KANI N, A p p e llan t

v. GAR Y HAMM E R, De t e c t i v e ; RI CH AR D L OB AC H; CO L ONI AL RE GI ONAL P OL I CE DE P AR T M E NT AND S UP E RI OR M UNI CI P AL I T I E S ; T ODD L . BU S HKI RK , I ndi vi dual l yand as W ar den of N or thampt on C ountyPr i s on; C O U N T Y O F N O R T H A M P T O N ; JA M E S K A T U R A , L t. i ndi vi dual l yand as a G uar d, E m pl oy ee of N or thampt on C ounty ; H O L I D A Y I N N O W N E R S, J O H N D O E ( 5)

____________________________________ 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 N o. 04- cv- 01321) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn R . Padova

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B)

D ece m ber6, 2007 Bef or e : BA RR Y , CH A G A RE S a nd N Y G A A RD , CI RC U I T J U D G ES

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 18, 2008 )

OP I NI ON2

P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antM i chae l J . Pi s kani n w as convi ct ed fol l ow i ng a j urytr i al i n the C our tof C om m on Pl eas of Lehi gh C ounty , Penns y l vani a of theftbydece pt i on, r ece i vi ng s t ol en p ro p e rt y , a n d s ix ty co u n ts o f id e n tity th e f

t, in v io la tio n o f

1 8 P a . C o n s . S ta t. A n n . §§ 3922( a) , 3925( a) , and 4120, r es pect i vel y . Pi s kani n w as arr es t ed on M ar ch 10, 2004 by D et ect i ve G aryH amm erof the C ol oni al R egi onal Pol i ce D epartm ent , N or thampt on C o u n ty , fo llo w in g a n in v e stig a tio n , w h ich th e n w a s c o n tin u e d b yth e P e n n sy lv a n ia S tate Pol i ce. T hati nves t i gat i on began w hen, on February9, 2004, D et ect i ve H amm err ece i ved a c o m p lai n t of

crim inal m isch ief to a h o tel roo m at a H o li d ayInn fro m it s m an ag er, R i char d L obach. T he occ upant s had vac at ed the pr emi s es tw o day s befor e. D et ect i ve H amm eri ns pect ed the r oom , w hi ch had s i gni fi cantdamage t o i t , and r etr i eved f ake P e n n sy lv a n ia d riv e r’s lice n se s a n d c o u n ter f e it ch e c k s. T h e lice n se s w e re su b se q u e n tly d e t e rmi n e d t o h a v e P i s k a n i n ’ s p i c tu r e o n th e m. D et ect i ve H amm erobt ai ned an a rr es tw arr antforPi s kani n fr om a D i s tr i ct M agi s tr at e i n N or thampt on C ounty . Pi s kani n w as arr es t ed out s i de a di ffe r entm ot el , the M ic ro te l I n n . H e w a s s e a rc h e d a n d f o u n d to b e c a rr y in g f

a k e d ri v e r’ s lic e n s e s . A Penns y l vani a St at e Troope rarr i ved on the s cene of the arr es t , r emoved a w al l etfr om Pi s kani n i n a s ear ch i nci dentt o the arr es t , and tr ans por t ed hi m t o the barr acks i n L ehi gh C ounty . Pi s kani n r emoved t hi r t een c ount er fei tchec ks fr om hi s pocketatthe barr acks and3

turned them over . A l l of the i t ems found on Pi s kani n on M ar ch 10, 2004 w er e turned overt o the s t at e tr ooper , i ncl udi ng s ever al w al l et s and 55 form s of i dent i fi cat i on bear i ng P is k a n in ’s p h o to g ra p h . I n addi t i on, a s ear ch w arr antw as exec ut ed on R oom 136 atthe M i cr ot el I nn, w h e re P is k a n in w a s s ta y in g , p u rs u a n t to th e a p p ro v a l o f a L e h ig h C o u n ty D is tr ic t J u s tic e . A sea rch o f th e ro o m y iel d ed su b stan ti al ev iden ce , inclu d ing a c o m p u ter, p ri n ter-scan n er, s oftw ar e, count er fei ti dent i fi cat i on car ds , chec k- m aki ng s t at i onary/ chec k s t ock, t en co m p let e ide n ti fica ti o n ca rds, an d p u rch ase rec eipts fro m b u sine sses . O n P iska n in’s co m p u ter, am o n g o ther thin g s, a state troo p er f o u n d a tem p lat e c o n tai n ing a b lank fo rm P e n n sy lv a n ia d riv e r’s lice n se w ith P isk a n in ’s p ictu re o n it. (It w a s b lan k w ith re sp e c t to dat e of bi r th and addr es s . ) T he tr ooperus ed the conf i s cat ed pur chas e r ece i pt s t o cont act the b usi nesses w here Pis kan i n h ad p assed the co un t erfei tcheck s. Pi s kani n w as r emoved fr om L ehi gh C ountyand t aken t o appea rbefor e a D i s tr i ct J us t i ce i n N or thampt on C ounty , w ho s etbai l at$10, 000. I ni t i al l y , he w as pl ace d i n a h o ld in g c e ll, b u t L ieu ten a n t K o stu ra , o f th e N o rth a m p to n C o u n typ riso n , rem o v e d h im fr om the hol di ng cel l and pl ace d hi m on s ui ci de w at ch. Pi s kani n’ s r el i gi ous m edal /neckl ace w as t aken f r om hi m , and he w as unabl e t o cont acta bai l bonds m an or couns el , ort o fi l e a pe t i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus w hi l e on s ui ci de w at ch. Pi s kani n fi l ed pr etr i al m ot i ons t o s uppr es s the evi dence w hi ch had be en s ei zed fr om hi s form erand curr entm ot el r oom s , hi s and hi s gi r l fr i end’ s aut om obi l es , the burnedT he s t at e tr i al j udge al s o uphel d the s ear ches of Pi s kani n’ s form err es i dence , hi s and 1 h is girl frien d ’s au tom o b il es, an d a sto rag e loc k er. 4 r e ma i n s o f

h i s f o rme rr e s i d e n c e , a n d i n c i d e n tt o h i s a rr e s t . Th e Hon o r a b l e Kel l yL. B anac h of the Lehi gh C ountyC our tof C om m on Pl eas deni ed the mot i ons , concl udi ng, among ot herthi ngs , thatPi s kani n had no r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacyi n the H ol i day In n ro o m h e h a d c h e c k e d o u t o f , an d th a t th e se a rc h o f

h is M icr o tel In n ro o m a n d o f h is p e rso n in c id e n t to th e a rre st c o m p o rte d w ith sta te la w a n d th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. 1 A ttr i al , the C om m onw eal th pr es ent ed the t es t i m onyof 34 w i tnes s es w ho s t at ed thatan unknow n i ndi vi dual us ed thei rper s onal i nform at i on w i thoutperm i s s i on. E ach w i tnes s w as s how n a Penns y l vani a orD el aw ar e dr i ver ’ s l i cens e depi ct i ng Pi s kani n, but cont ai ni ng per s onal i nform at i on bel ongi ng t o the w i tnes s orm ember s of hi s fami l y , and e a c h w itn e ss tes tifie d th a t th e ir p e rso n a l in f o rm a tio n w a s o n th e lice n se , w ith o u t th e ir perm i s s i on. Fourbus i nes s ow ner s r ecogni zed Pi s kani n as the per s on w ho pr es ent ed a ba d check attheirbu si ness. Pi s kani n i s pr es ent l yi ncar cer at ed as a r es ul tof thi s ver di ct . H e fi l ed s ui tunder42 U . S. C . §§ 1983 and 1985( 3) i n U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of hi s cons t i tut i onal ci vi l r i ght s agai ns tthe C ol oni al Pol i ce D epartm ent , D et ect i ve H amm er , R i char d L obach, N or thampt on C ountyPr i s on W a rd e n T o d d B u sh k irk , L ieu ten a n t Ja m e s K o stu ra , an d th e C o u n tyo f N o rth a m p to n in c o n n e c tio n w ith a n a lleg e d c o n sp ira c yto c o n d u c t il leg a l se a rc h e s a n d se izu re s a n d toT h e se o rd e rs w e re e n ter e d o n th e d o c k e t o n M a rc h 2 9 , 2 0 0 7 (D .E . N o . 1 3 0 ), A p ril 2 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 (D . E . N o . 1 3 6 ), M ay7 , 1 0 0 7 (D . E . N o . 1 3 8 ) an d M ay9 , 2 0 0 7 (D . E . N o . 1 3 9 ). 5 arr es thi m , and an a l l eged c ons pi r acyonce he w as j ai l ed t o vi ol at e hi s r i ghtt o bai l and couns el , r i ghtof ac ces s t o the court s , r i ghtt o be fr ee f r om cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent in th e f o rm o f c o n f in e m e n t to a su icid e w a tch , an d h is F irst A m e n d m e n t rig h t to k e e p h is r el i gi ous m edal /neckl ace . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the C ol oni al Pol i ce D epartm entand the C ountyof N o rth a m p to n e a rlyin th e lit ig a tio n p u rsu a n t to M o n e ll v . D e p ' t o f S o c ial S e rv ice s o f

C ity of N ew Y ork, 436 U . S. 658 ( 1978) , and cl ai m s agai ns tW ar den B us ki rk and Li eut enant K os tur a i n thei roffi ci al capa ci t i es w er e di s m i s s ed as w el l . D i s coveryens ued and Pi s kani n w as depos ed. H e vol unt ar i l yagr eed t o di s m i s s defe ndantL obach f r om the a c tio n . T h e re m a in in g d e f e n d a n ts m o v e d f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. I n var i ous or der s and opi ni ons , the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the r emai ni ng defe ndant s ’ m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm entand deni ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on. 2 T he courthel d thatthe s ui tagai ns tD et ect i ve H amm eral l egi ng Four th A m endment viol at i on s w as barr ed b yH eck v . H um ph rey , 51 2 U . S . 47 7, 48 9 (199 4), becau se success o n th e c iv il r ig h ts c la im s w o u ld n e c e s s a ri ly im p ly th e in v a lid ity o f P is k a n in ’s c o n v ic tio n s . A s th o s e c o n v ic tio n s h a d n o t b e e n in v a lid a te d , H e c k re q u ir e d d is m is s a l o f th e a c tio n . S um m aryj ud gm ent w as grant ed o n the con spi racycou nt under sect i on 19 85 (3) against defe nd ants B uskirk, K ostura and H am m er, becau se there w as no ev i den ce that theseP i skanin al l eged that these de fend ants w ere m oti vated bya M asonic- i nspir ed, cl ass- 3 bas ed ani m us t o depr i ve hi m of hi s ci vi l r i ght s beca us e he i s R om an C athol i c. 6 ind ividu als ac ted o u t of an an ti -C atho li c b ias. T h e c o u rtfu rth er f o u n d n o ev iden ti ary 3 b asis w h atev er f

o r P iska n in’s sec ti o n 1 9 8 3 claim s ag ains t B u sk irk , K o stura a n d H am m er, c o n c e rn in g th e d e n ia l o f c o u n s e l, th e ri g h t to b a il, o r t h e ri g h t o f a c c e s s to th e c o u rt s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o aw ar ded s um m aryj udgm entt o B us ki rk, K os tur a and H am m er o n the E igh th an d F ir st A m en d m en t cl aim s. T h e re co rd sh o w ed that K o stura pl ace d Pi s kani n br i efl yon s ui ci de w at ch bec aus e of hi s s tr ange a s s ert i on thathe w as w orki ng under coverforl aw enfor cementauthor i t i es , an as s ert i on w hi ch coul d notbe ver i fi ed and w hi ch appe ar ed t o i ndi cat e emot i onal di s tr es s . Pi s kani n al s o as ked t o be pl ace d i n pr ot ect i ve cus t ody . D r . A l ex Thom as i nt ervi ew ed Pi s kani n on M ar ch 14, 2004, f o u rd a y s a f

t e rKo s tu r a p l a c e d h i m o n s u i c i d e wa t c h , a n d k e p th i m o n s u i c i d e wa t c h . He w a s s e e n b ya p s y c h ia tr is t tw o d a y s la te r a n d th e s u ic id e w a tc h w a s d is c o n tin u e d . P e rso n a l it e m s w e re tak e n f ro m P isk a n in w h ile h e w a s o n su icid e w a tch , inc lu d in g h is re lig io u s m e d a l/n e c k lac e . It w a s m a iled to a f a m ilym e m b e r, w h o e v e n tu a llym a iled it b a c k to P is k a n in , b u t h e w a s w ith o u t it f o r a p p ro x im a te ly 3 0 d a y s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatthes e ci r cumst ance s pr ovi ded an i ns uffi ci ent ev iden ti aryb asis fo r a tri al on eith er the E igh th o r F ir st A m en d m en t cl aim s. P iska n in’s pl ace m entfora br i ef pe r i od of t i m e on s ui ci de w at ch and the r emoval of hi s r el i gi ous m edal /neckl ace di d notamountt o puni s hm entpr i ort o an adj udi cat i on of gui l t , B el l v.I n addi t i on, the D i s tr i ctC our taw ar ded s um m aryj udgm entt o the def endant s on 4 P isk a n in ’s c laim th a t h is te lep h o n e d a ta w a s o b tain e d in v io latio n o f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia W ir etap p ing an d E lectron ic S u rve il lanc e C o n tr o l A ct, 1 8 P a. C o n s. S tat . A n n . § 5 7 2 5 (a), and the courtdeni ed Pi s kani n’ s r eques tt o be r el eas ed fr om pr i s on. 7 W ol fi s h, 441 U . S. 520, 535 n. 16 ( 1979) , and r eas onabl ys erved the l egi t i m at e purpos e of p rotec ti n g h im fro m h arm ing h im self, H u b b ard v . T ay lor, 3 9 9 F . 3 d 1 5 0 , 1 5 9 (3d C ir . 2005) . I n addi t i on, Pi s kani n’ s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ghtt o fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on w as not i m perm i s s i bl yi m pi nged bythe conf i s cat i on of hi s m edal /neckl ace , beca us e conf i s cat i on sat i sfi ed the l egit i m at e and neu tral pu rpose of p rot ect i ng him , and he w as not otherw i se p rev en ted f

rom p rac ti cing h is r eli g ion . T u rne r v. S af ley , 4 8 2 U . S . 7 8 , 8 9 -90 (19 8 7 ); S u tt o n v . R ash ee d , 3 2 3 F . 3 d 2 3 6 , 2 5 2 -53 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 4 Pi s kani n appea l s . O urC l erk gr ant ed hi s m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s and a d v is e d h im th a t h is a p p e a l w a s s u b je c t to d is m is s a l u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B ). T h e W a rd e n o f

th e S tate C o rre c tio n a l In stitu tio n a t C re ss o n , w h e re P isk a n in is in c a rc e ra te d , w a s d ir e c te d to m a k e th e in itia l f e e a s s e s s m e n t, 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (b ). Pi s kani n has fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on of the C l erk’ s O r derand obj ect s t o m oney b e i n g d e d u c t e d f

r o m h i s p r i s o n a c c o u n tf o rth e p u rp o s e o f

p a y i n g th e a p p e l l a t e f

e e s . He c l a i ms a $ 3 0 0 . 0 0 e x e mp t i o n u n d e rs t a t e l a w. W e w i l l di s m i s s the appe al as fr i vol ous . A n appel l antm aypr os ecut e hi s appea l w ith o u t p re p a ym e n t o f

th e f e e s, 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (a )(1 ), b u t th e in f o rm a p a u p e ris s tatu te p ro v id e s th a t th e C o u rt sh a ll d ism iss th e a p p e a l at a n ytim e if th e C o u rt d e ter m in e s th a t itI n G i bs on v. Super i nt endent , N . J . D ep’ tof Law and Publ i c Safe ty , 411 F. 3d 427 ( 3d 5 C i r . 2005) , cert . deni ed, 547 U . S. 1035 ( 2006) , w e addr es s ed w hetherH eck v. Hu mp h r e y ’ s f

a v o r a b l e t e rmi n a t i o n ru l e a p p l i e d t o F o u r th Am e n d me n tc l a i ms , a n d we a p p ro v e d o f

a f a c t-b a se d in q u iryin to w h e th e r th e p a rticu larc laim im p lied th e in v a lid ity o f th e u n d erly ing co n v ict ion . Id. at 44 7 -45 1 . H ere , w e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s th re sh o ld d e ter m in a tio n th a t P isk a n in ’s F o u rth A m e n d m e n t cla im s, if su c c e ss f u l, w o u ld hav e the ef

fectof rend eri ng his cri m i nal conv i ct i on s i nv al i d. Id. at45 1. P i skanin’ s case is o n a p p e a l to th e S u p e rio r C o u rt, C o m m w . v . P isk a n in , 2 3 8 1 E D A 2 0 0 7 , an d h is b rie f is due on D ece m ber31, 2007, acc or di ng t o the publ i c docke t . H i s convi ct i on thus has not been i nval i dat ed. I n addi t i on, the s t at e tr i al j udge addr es s ed a s uffi ci encyof the evi dence ar gum enti n herPa. R . A pp. Pr o. § 1925( a) opi ni on and s he not ed thatthe evi dence s ei zed, i ncl udi ng the thi r t een c ount er fei tchec ks t aken f r om Pi s kani n’ s per s on atthe b a rra c k s, th e o v e r f

if tyc h e c k s s e ize d f

ro m th e M icr o tel In n ro o m , the f o u r w a llets 8 i s fr i vol ous , 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . A n appea l i s fr i vol ous w hen i tl acks an ar guabl e bas i s ei theri n l aw orfac t . N ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U . S. 319, 325 ( 1989) . O ur rev iew o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ' s g ran t of su m m aryjud g m en t i s p lena ryan d w e m u st aff irm su m m a ryju d g m e n t if th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t an d th e m o v in g p a rtyis ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . See C el ot ex C orp. v. C atr ett , 477 U . S. 317, 322- 2 3 (1 9 8 6 ). W e conc l ude thatther e i s no ar guabl e bas i s i n fac torl aw fordi s agr eei ng w i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s um m aryj udgm entdet erm i nat i on. N ei t zke, 490 U . S. at325; C el ot ex C o rp ., 4 7 7 U .S . at 3 2 2 -2 3 . W e h a v e c a re f u llyre v iew e d th e re c o rd , inc lu d in g th e sta te courtopi ni ons s ubm i t t ed w i th one of the s um m aryj udgm entm ot i ons . T he O pi ni ons of the D i s tr i ctC our tar e thor ough and w el l - r eas oned, and w e r eadi l yappr ove of the r eas oni ng of the D i s tr i ctC our ti n ful l . Sum m aryj udgm entw as pr operbeca us e the ac t i on i s barr ed as t o s om e count s , H eck v. H um phr ey , 512 U . S. at489, and ther e w as an 5cont ai ni ng fake i dent i fi cat i ons and the over50 fake i dent i fi cat i on car ds turned overon

the d ayo f P iska n in’s arrest, p rov ided the b asis fo r th e jury ’s ve rdict. T h u s, P iska n in’s Four th A m endmentcl ai m s , i f s ucce s s ful , w oul d have the ef fec tof r ender i ng hi s cr i m i nal c o n v ic tio n s in v a lid . T he Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ctperm i t s an i nm at e’ s acc ountt o be as s es s ed forthe 6 appel l at e docke t i ng fee s , 28 U . S. C . § 1915( b) , w i thoutr egar d t o s t at e s t atut es exempt i ng th e v a lu e o f

c e rta in a m o u n ts o f

m o n e yf ro m a ttac h m e n t o r e x e c u tio n . S e e g e n e ra lly C os byv. M eador s , 351 F. 3d 1324, 1326- 27 ( 10 C i r . 2003) ( i f in fo rm a p a u p e ris pr i s oner th h as m ea n s to p aym o n thlyp arti al fil ing fe e, as req u ir ed u n d er P ri so n L it igation R ef o rm A ct, h is fail u re to p aym ayresu ltin d ism issal of h is case ). 9 i ns uffi ci entevi dent i arybas i s on w hi ch a r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd i n Pi s kani n’ s favoron th e o th e r c o u n ts , A n d e rs o n v . L ib e rt yL o b b y , In c ., 4 7 7 U .S . 2 4 2 , 2 4 9 -5 0 (1 9 8 6 ). W e w i l l di s m i s s the appe al as fr i vol ous under28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . T he m ot i on forr econs i der at i on of the C l erk’ s O r deri s deni ed. 6