2010 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 4-22-2010 

# George V a sque z v . J ohn D w ye r 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 . 09-4352

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_2010

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 2010 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 " Ge org e V as quez v . J o hn D w ye r " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1464. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1464BL D- 1 3 2 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. 09- 4352

___________ G E O R G E V A S Q U E Z , A ppel l ant

v. JO H N B . D W Y E R , D e p u tyP u b lic D e f e n d e r; JA M E S F . A V IG L IA N O , P a ss a iac C o u n tyP ro se c u to r; D O M IN IC F . P A L U M B O , C rim in a l D iv isio n M a n a g e r; M A R I L Y N C L A R K , Super i orC our tJ udge

____________________________________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 09- cv- 01934) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os eph A . G r eena w ay

____________________________________ 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) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 February25, 2010 B efor e: M cK E E , R E N D E L L and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 22, 2010)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________2

P E R C UR I AM G eor ge V as quez f

i l ed a c om pl ai ntunder42 U . S. C . § 1983 al l egi ng thatappel l ees h a d lo s t f

ile s c o n ta in in g h is a rr e s t w a rr a n t w h ic h h e n e e d e d to p ro v e h is a rr e s t w a s ille g a l. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) and 1 9 1 5 A (b ) f

o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim a n d f o r se e k in g re lief

f ro m d e f e n d a n ts w ith im m u n ity . V a sq u e z f

iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. B e c a u se V a sq u e z is p ro c e e d in g in f o rm a p a u p e ris on thi s appea l , w e mustanal y ze h is ap p ea l fo r po ssible d ism issal pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). U n d er § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ), w e m u st d ism iss a n a p p e a l if th e a c tio n (i) is f riv o lo u s o r m a licio u s, (ii) fai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed, or( i i i ) s eeks m onet arydamages fr om a def

endantw i th i m m uni ty . A n act i on orappea l can be fr i vol ous forei therl egal or fa ctua l r ea so n s. N eit zk e v . W il li am s, 4 9 0 U . S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (19 8 9 ). In h is co m p lai n t, V asq u ez all eg ed that Jo h n D w y er, his pu b li c d ef en d er, i n t e n t i o n a l l yl o s th i s tr i a l f i l e b e c a u s e Va s q u e z h a d f i l e d a c o mp l a i n ta g a i n s th i m. As not ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our t , publ i c def ender s ar e nots t at e ac t or s . Pol k C ountyv. D ods on, 4 5 4 U .S . 3 1 2 , 3 2 5 (1 9 8 1 ). T h u s, V a sq u e z ’s a lleg a tio n s a g a in st a p p e llee D w y e r f a il t o s t at e a c l ai m under§ 1983. M or eover , acc or di ng t o a l ett erfr om D w y ers ubm i t t ed by V asq u ez in h is ha b ea s p roc ee d ing s, D w y er m ad e su b stan ti al ef fo rt s to f ind V asq u ez ’s cr i m i nal fi l e. V as quez a l l eged thatJ ames A vi gl i ano, the pr os ecut or , purpos el yl os tordes tr oy ed3

hi s fi l e t o pr eventhi m fr om gett i ng a copyof the arr es tw arr ant . H ow ever , V as quez ha s notpl eade d anyfac t s t o s uppor thi s concl us oryal l egat i on thatA vi gl i ano des tr oy ed the fil e a n d d id so w il lfu ll y . S ee A sh cro ft v . Iqb al, 1 2 9 S . C t. 1 9 3 7 , 1 9 4 9 (20 0 9 ). M o reo v er, A vi gl i ano has pr os ecut or i al i m m uni ty . See I m bl erv. Pachtm an, 424 U . S. 409, 410 (19 7 6 ). V a sq u e z c o n ten d e d th a t Ju d g e C lar k o f th e S u p e rio r C o u rt d e n ied h is p o stconvi ct i on pet i t i on and i gnor ed hi s m ot i on t o compel di s covery . H e al l eged thats he k n e w h e h a d n o f

iles w h e n sh e d e n ied h is P C R p e tit io n . Ju d g e C lar k is e n tit led to abs ol ut e i m m uni tyfr om s ui t s form oneydamages . Stum p v. Spar km an, 435 U . S. 349 (1 9 7 8 ). V as quez a l s o as s ert ed thatD om i ni c Pal um bo, the M anage rof the C r i m i nal D i vi s i on of the Super i orC our tof N ew J er s ey , had an obl i gat i on t o m ai nt ai n hi s fi l es and losing the f

il e v iolated V asq u ez ’s ri g h ts t o d u e p roc ess. W e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt thatV as quez’ s al l egat i ons agai ns tappel l ee Pal um bo fai l t o s t at e a c l ai m . See C ountyof S ac ram en to v . L ew is, 5 2 3 U . S . 8 3 3 , 8 4 9 (19 9 8 )(“[L ]i ab il ityfo r ne g li g en tl yinf li cted h arm i s cat egor i cal l ybenea th t he thr es hol d of cons t i tut i onal due pr oces s . ”) . M or eover , i n a l ett ers ubm i t t ed byV as quez i n hi s habea s pr ocee di ngs , Pal um bo i nform ed hi m thatthe C rim in a l D iv isio n d o e s n o t m a in tain d isc o v e rysu c h a s a n a rre st w a rra n t an d a f f id a v it. V a s q u e z a ls o re q u e s te d re le a s e f ro m p ri s o n if

h is a rr e s t w a rr a n t w a s n o t p ro d u c e d . T hi s r el i ef i s notavai l abl e i n a ci vi l r i ght s act i on under§ 1983 and mustbe s oughtvi a a4

w ri t of h ab ea s co rpu s. P reiser v . R o d ri g u ez , 4 1 1 U . S . 4 7 5 , 5 0 0 (19 7 3 ). F o rth e a b o v e r e a s o n s , we wi l l d i s mi s s th e a p p e a l u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ).