2005 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 7-12-2005 

# Mitchell v . Guzick 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 . 04-3824

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_2005

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 2005 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
" Mit chell v

. G uz ick " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 867. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/867NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 04- 3824 

### J OS EP H M I TC HE LL , Appe l l ant v. LO RIGUZI CK ; RI CH ARD W I ES T; J OS EP H O ' DO NN EL L

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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 02- cv- 00178) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC . C onner

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y11, 2005 B efor e: SL O V I T E R and M cK E E , C i r cui tJ udges , and FU L L A M , D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed: J ul y12, 2005)

OP I NI ON

_______________ H on. J ohn P. Ful l am, Seni orJ udge, 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, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.Of c o u r s e , i n r e v i e wi n g a g r a n to f s u mm a ryj u d g me n t , we 1 m us t vi ew “the under l y i ng fac t s and al l r eas onabl e i n fer ence s ther efr om i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pa rt y o p p os i ng the m ot i on, ” her e M i t chel l . Pa. C oal A s s ’ n v. B abbi t t , 63 F. 3d 231, 2 3 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). Al l c i t a t i o n s t o “ App . ” d e n o t e th e a p p e n d i x f i l e d by 2 A ppel l ant ; al l ci t at i ons t o “Supp. A pp. ” r efe r t o the appe ndi x fi l ed b yA p p e lle e s . 2 SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. J os eph M i t chel l appea l s fr om the or der s of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ent er i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof Lori G uzi ck, R i char d W i es t , and J os eph O ’ D onnel l ( her ei naft ercol l ect i vel y“D efe ndant s ”) on M i t chel l ’ s cl ai m s form al i ci ous pr os ecut i on, abus e of pr oces s , and ci vi l cons pi r acy . T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . §§ 1331, 1332; thi s courthas j ur i s di ct i on p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 . F o rth e r e a s o n s e x p l a i n e d b e l o w, we wi l l a f f i r m. I. B e c a u se th e p a rties a re f a m ili a r w ith th e f

a c tu a l an d p ro c e d u ra l b a c k g ro u n d o f th is
cas e, w e r efe ronl yt o t hos e fa ct s thatar e pert i nentt o ourdi s pos i t i on. O n February14, 1 1997, K ar en L. M i t chel l i ns t i tut ed di vor ce pr ocee di ngs agai ns tM i t chel l . A pp. at98. 2 G uzi ck, an att orneyw i th t he fi r m of W i l l i amson, Fr i edber g & J ones , L L C , r epr es ent ed M rs. M itch e ll i n th is a c tio n . U n f o rtu n a tely , the M itch e lls’ d iv o rc e w a s h ig h ly
con t enti ou s. Sever al m onths aft erM r s . M i t chel l fi l ed fordi vor ce, the C om m onw eal th char gedSubse quent t o the fa ct s gi vi ng r i s e t o thi s act i on, C orpor al 3 O ’ D onnel l r et i r ed fr om the Pot t s vi l l e, Penns y l vani a pol i ce f or ce. 3 M i t chel l w i th bur gl ar i zi ng M r s . M i t chel l ’ s apart m ent . C orpor al O ’ D onnel l had l i m i t ed 3 i nvol vementw i th t hi s cas e, and mer el ys ati n on anotheroffi cer ’ s i nt err ogat i on of M i t chel l , as he w as notthe pr i m aryl aw enfor cementoffi ceras s i gned t o the mat t erand act ed mer el yas a s upervi s or . E ventual l y , upon the advi ce of couns el , M i t chel l m ade
re stitu tio n to M rs. M itch e ll an d , as a re su lt, th e c h a rg e s a g a in st h im w e re d ro p p e d in late 1997 orear l y1998. In D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 7 , M itch e ll w a s c h a rg e d w ith a n o th e r c rim e . A c c o rd in g to O ’D on nell , on D ecem ber 16, 1997 , M i t chell st op ped his car i n the m i dd l e of a bu sy i nt er s ect i on, appr oache d O ’ D onnel l w hi l e he w as on footpatr ol , y el l ed athi m , and i gnor ed r epea t ed or der s t o l eave the s cene . I n J anuary1998, a s t at e magi s tr at e j udge f o u n d M itch e ll g u iltyo f

d iso rd e rlyc o n d u c t; ap p a re n tly , M itch e ll d id n o t ap p e a l th is det erm i nat i on. I n N ovember1998, M i t chel l began s endi ng l ett er s t o G uzi ck, eventual l yt ot al i ng at l eas tthi r t een l ett er s . G uzi ck, al arm ed bythe numberand cont entof thes e l ett er s , s poke
w i th the pol i ce. I ni t i al l y , C orpor al O ’ D onnel l , aft erm eet i ng w i th G uzi ck and r evi ew i ng the l ett er s , advi s ed her“thatthe l ett er s w er e open t o var i ous i nt erpr et at i ons , ” A pp. at272, and thus di d nott ake a ct i on atthatt i m e. M i t chel l cont i nued t o s end l ett er s t o G uzi ck. A s a r es ul t , s om et i m e i n ear l y1999,4

O ’ D onnel l s poke w i th G i no D i ni col a, the att orneyw ho w as r epr es ent i ng M i t chel l i n t he d iv o rc e p ro c e e d in g s , a n d a s k e d D in ic o la to te ll h is c lie n t to s to p s e n d in g le tte rs to G u z ic k . D in ico la p ro m ise d to re lay th e re q u e st; th e lette rs, h o w e v e r, co n tin u e d . M e a n w h ile, in M a rc h 1 9 9 9 , the M itch e lls’ d iv o rc e b e c a m e f in a l. A t som e p o int i n Ju n e 1 9 9 9 , M it ch ell en tered the o ff ices o f W il li am so n , F ri ed b erg & Jo n e s, L L C a n d a sk e d to sp e a k w ith G u z ick . H e w a s a d v ise d th a t G u z ick w a s n o t in th e o f f ice a t th a t ti m e . A p p a re n tly , M itch e ll th e n e x p re ss e d h is f ru stra tio n w ith G u z ick in gener al and herconductdur i ng the di vor ce pr ocee di ngs i n part i cul ar . W i es t , a partnerat W il li am so n , F ri ed b erg & Jo n es, L L C , told M it ch ell that h e w o u ld d iscu ss M it ch ell ’s
conce rns w i th G uzi ck. W i es tand G uzi ck ther eaf t ercont act ed the pol i ce; the pol i ce, how ever , t ook no act i on atthatt i m e. O n O c to b e r 2 0 , 1 9 9 9 , M itch e ll ag a in e n ter e d th e law f irm ’s o f f ice s a n d a sk e d to see G uzick. H e l eftaft er G uzick’ s col l eagu es t old hi m that s he w as unav ai l able. A s a re su lt o f th is v isit, W ies t se n t a le tter to M itch e ll d a ted O c to b e r 2 2 , 1 9 9 9 , inf o rm in g h im thathi s “phy s i cal pr es ence on [the fi r m ’ s ] pr operty[w as ] notw el come. ” Supp. A pp. at 244. A f

te r M itc h e ll r e c e iv e d th is le tte r, h e s p o k e o n th e te le p h o n e w ith W ie s t. A ccor di ng t o W i es t , dur i ng thi s conver s at i on, M i t chel l s ai d: “I am goi ng t o [expl et i ve] ki l l y ou. ” A pp. at226. T her eaf t er , on N ovember4, 1999, the C om m onw eal th char ged M itch e ll w ith h a ra ss m e n t, stalk in g , an d m a k in g ter ro ristic th re a ts. F o llo w in g a trial in5

January20 01 , a j uryacqu i t t ed M i t chell on al l charges. O n February4, 2002, M i t chel l fi l ed a Com pl ai nti n the D i s tr i ctC our t . R el y i ng, al t ernat i vel y , on 42 U . S. C . § 1983 and Penns y l vani a l aw , the C om pl ai ntcont ai ned: C ount I, a fed eral -l aw based c ou nt of m al i ci ou s prosecut i on and abu se of p rocess against G uzi ck, W i es t , and O ’ D onnel l ; and, C ountI I , a s t at e- l aw bas ed countof m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on and abus e of pr oces s agai ns tthos e i ndi vi dual s . I n addi t i on, the C om pl ai nt
averr ed thatD efe ndant s had cons pi r ed aga i ns thi m t o comm i tthos e t or t s . T he gr avamen of the C om pl ai ntw as thatW i es tand G uzi ck had c ons pi r ed w i th O ’ D onnel l t o fi l e, p r o s e c u t e , a n d m a n i p u l a t e th e v a r i o u s c h a r g e s f o rth e p u rp o s e s o f

e x t o r t i n g m o n e y, coerci ng a fav orabl e res ultfor M rs . M i t chell i n the di vo rce pr oceed i ng , and otherw i se h a ra ss in g a n d a n n o y in g M itch e ll. T h e D istri ct C o u rten tered su m m aryjud g m en t i n D ef en d an ts’ fa v o r on M it ch ell ’s § 1 9 8 3 c la im s , b u t c o n tin u e d to e x e rc is e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r M itc h e ll’ s s ta te la w c la im s . T her eaf t er , the C our tent er ed s um m aryj udgm enti n D efe ndant s ’ favoron thos e cl ai m s as
w el l . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. II. W e r evi ew a gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, appl y i ng the s ame st andar d as di d the di s tr i ctcourt . U ni on Pac. R . R . C o. v. G r eentr ee Tr ans p. T rucki ng C o. , 293 F. 3d 120, 125 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e w her e ther e ar e no genui ne i s s ues as t o anym at er i al fac tand the movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erofC iti n g F e d . R . A p p . P . 2 8 (a )(5 ), D e f e n d a n t O ’D o n n e ll 4 c o n ten d s tha t, a sid e f

ro m th e c o n tin u in g v io latio n s the o ry , M itch e ll has fai l ed t o pr es erve any i s s ues on appea l agai ns t hi m . A l though w e a g re e w ith O ’D o n n e ll th a t M itch e ll’s b rie f is la c k in g in th is r egar d, w e bel i eve thathi s br i ef ha s s uffi ci ent ly pr es erved the issue s an d thu s ad d ress the c o rr e c tn ess o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s sum m aryj ud gm ent or ders. 6 l aw . See Fed. R . C i v. P. 56. A s not ed above , M i t chel l ’ s C om pl ai ntcont ai ned al l egat i ons of ( 1) m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on; ( 2) abus e of pr oces s ; and ( 3) cons pi r acy– al l egat i ons w hi ch
we a d d r e s s s e r i a t i m. 4 III . T o pr evai l on a mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m under§ 1983, a pl ai nt i ff musts how that : ( 1) the def

endant 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 the pl ai nt i ff’ s favor ; ( 3) the def endant s i ni t i at ed the pr ocee di ng w i thoutpr 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) the pl ai nt i ff s uffe r ed a de pr i vat i on of l i bertyas 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
o rd e r t o p re v a il o n a P e n n s y lv a n ia c o m m o n la w a c tio n f o r m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n , a p lain tiff m u st p ro v e : (1 ) th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts in stitu ted p ro c e e d in g s w ith o u t p ro b a b le
ca u se; (2) tha t th e d ef

en d an ts acted w ith m ali ce ; and (3) tha t th e p roc ee d ing s w ere term inated in f

av o r of the p lai n ti ff. H u g ee v . P a. R . R . C o . , 1 0 1 A . 2 d 7 4 0 , 7 4 2 (P a. 19 5 4 ). T h e re a re th re e p ro se c u tio n s h e re a t issu e : th e b u rg lar yp ro se c u tio n ; th e d iso rd e rly
c o n d u c t p ro s e c u tio n ; a n d th e h a ra s s m e n t, s ta lk in g , a n d te rr o ri s tic th re a ts p ro s e c u tio n .7

U pon ourde novo r evi ew , w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatM i t chel l has nots how n anyevi dence t o s uppor thi s al l egat i ons of m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on w i th r es pect t o an yof these three prosecut i on s. S p ec ifi ca ll y , n eith er the d isord erlyco n d u ct pro sec u ti o n n o r th e b u rglary pr os ecut i on ended ort erm i nat ed i n M i t chel l ’ s favor . M ar as co, 318 F. 3d at521; H ugee, 101 A . 2d at742. M os tobvi ous l y , a s t at e magi s tr at e j udge found M i t chel l gui l tyof the di s or der l yconductchar ge – a t erm i nat i on cl ear l ynoti n M i t chel l ’ s favor . Fur therm or e, by
w ayof a c om pr om i s e ent er ed i nt o i n or dert o avoi d a convi ct i on, M i t chel l pai d hi s exw i fe r es t i tut i on fori t ems al l egedl ys t ol en dur i ng the bur gl ary . T hus , thatpr os ecut i on l i kew i s e di d nott erm i nat e i n M i t chel l ’ s favor . See H i l fi r tyv. Shi pm an, 91 F. 3d 573, 580 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( “[A ] pr os ecut or ’ s deci s i on t o w i thdr aw cr i m i nal char ges pur s uantt o a c o m p ro m ise w ith th e a c c u se d is n o t co n sid e re d to b e a ter m in a tio n su f f icie n tlyf a v o ra b le t o s uppor ta mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m . ”) ; A l i anel l v. H offman, 176 A . 207, 208 ( Pa. 1 9 3 5 ) ( “ W h e re th e te rm in a tio n o f a c ri m in a l p ro s e c u tio n . . . h a s b e e n b ro u g h t a b o u t . . . bycompromi s e and s ett l ement , an ac t i on form al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cannotbe
m aintaine d . ”) (interna l ci tat ion an d q u o tat ion s o m itted). O n t he otherhand, a j uryacqui t t ed M i t chel l of the har as s m ent , s t al ki ng, and t err or i s t i c thr eat s char ges ; thus , thatpr os ecut i on w as i ndeed t erm i nat ed i n hi s favor . T he D istric t C o u rt, h o w e v e r, f o u n d th a t th e h a ra ss m e n t, stalk in g , an d ter ro ristic th re a ts p rose cu ti o n w as in sti tuted w ith p rob ab le ca u se a n d , there fo re, he ld tha t M it ch ell ’sU nderboth § 1983 and Penns y l vani a l aw , the exi s t ence or 5 n o n e x i s t e n c e o f

p r o b a b l e c a u s e i s u s u a l l y a q u e s t i o n f o r th e j u ry, but “w he r e n o g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o a n yma t e r i a l f a c te x i s t s a nd w her e cr edi bi l i ty confl i ct s ar e abs ent , s um m aryj udgm entm aybe appr opr i at e. ” Sharr arv. Fel s i ng, 128 F. 3d 810, 818 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on and quot at i ons om i tt ed) ; s ee a l s o W ai naus ki s , 488 A . 2d at1122. 8 m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m bas ed ther eon w as unt enabl e. P ro b a b le c a u se is “ d e f

in e d in ter m s o f

f a c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s ‘s u f f icie n t to
w arr anta prudentm an i n bel i evi ng thatthe [s us pect ] had comm i t t ed orw as comm i t t i ng an off ens e. ’ ” G er s t ei n v. Pugh, 420 U . S. 103, 111 ( 1975) ( quot i ng B eck v. O hi o, 379 U . S. 89, 91 ( 1964) ) . T hi s s t andar d i s m eantt o “‘ s afe guar d ci t i zens fr om r as h and
unr eas onabl e i nt er fer ence s w i th pr i vacy ’ ” w hi l e s i m ul t aneous l ypr ovi di ng “l eew ayfor enfor ci ng the l aw i n t he comm uni ty ’ s pr ot ect i on. ” Pugh, 420 U . S. at112 ( quot i ng B ri neg ar v. U nit ed S t at es, 33 8 U . S . 16 0, 17 6 (194 9)) . T his cou rthas st at ed thati tm ust lo o k a t th e “ to talityo f

th e c irc u m sta n c e s” a n d u se a “ c o m m o n se n se ” a p p ro a c h in
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 ir. 1 9 8 4 ). M o re o v e r, an d c o n tra ryto M itch e ll’s a rg u m e n t, th e a b se n c e o f p ro b a b le
c a u se “ is n o t co n c lu siv e lye sta b lish e d b ya n a d ju d ica tio n o f

in n o c e n c e in th e [ c rim in a l] p ro c e e d in g .” W a in a u sk is v . H o w a rd Jo h n so n C o ., 4 8 8 A .2 d 1 1 1 7 , 1 1 2 2 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 1 9 8 5 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion s an d cit ati o n o m itted). 5 H e re , the re c o rd sh o w s u n e q u iv o c a llyth a t M itch e ll se n t a s e rie s o f lette rs to G u z ick a n d c o n tin u e d to d o so a f ter b e in g a sk e d to sto p ; th is c o n d u c t p ro v id e d p ro b a b le9

c a u s e f o ra h a r a s s me n tc h a r g e . 1 8 P a . Co n . S t a t . § 2 7 0 9 ( a ) . S i mi l a r l y , th e r e c o r d s h o ws concl us i vel ythatM i t chel l ent er ed G uzi ck and W i es t ’ s l aw fi r m aft erbei ng t ol d he w as notw el come; thi s conductpr ovi ded pr obabl e caus e fora s t al ki ng pr os ecut i on. 18 Pa. C on. St at . § 2709. 1( a) . Fi nal l y , M i t chel l purpor t edl ythr eat ened t o ki l l W i es t , an al l egat i on ful l ys uppor t i ve of a pr os ecut i on form aki ng t err or i s t i c thr eat s . 18 Pa. C on. St at . § 2706. W hetherM i t chel l actual l ym ade s uch a thr eati s i m m at er i al ; s i m i l ar l y , the fa ctt hat th e ju ry a c q u itte d h im o f th e c h a rg e s is n o t d is p o s itiv e . W a in a u s k is , 4 8 8 A .2 d a t 1 1 2 3 . M i t chel l has pr es ent ed no evi dence thats how s , oreven s ugges t s , thatO ’ D onnel l or any one el s e w i th t he C om m onw eal th had r eas on t o di s bel i eve W i es torthe other
w i tnes s es . O n t he fa ct s pr es ent ed, a prudentoffi cercoul d r eas onabl yhave be l i eved that M it ch ell h ad co m m itted th e o ff en ses. P u g h , 4 2 0 U . S . at 11 1 . W e w il l th ere fo re a ff irm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s dis m i ssal of M i t chell ’s m al i ci ou s prosecut i on cl ai m s. I V. T urni ng t o M i t chel l ’ s r emai ni ng cl ai m s , w e not e that42 U . S. C . § 1983 does not i t s e l f c o n t a i n a l i mi t a t i o n s p e r i o d . I n W i l s o n v . Ga r c i a , 4 7 1 U. S . 2 6 0 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , th e S u p r e me Co u r to f th e Un i t e d S t a t e s h e l d th a tb e c a u s e c l a i ms u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 a r e , i n e s s e n c e , c l a i ms fo r pe rson al i n

jury , the s ev era l st ates’ statutes o f li m it ati o n s ap p li ca b le t o p erso n al i n jury cl ai m s contr ol act i ons under§ 1983. 471 U . S. at276. Penns y l vani a l aw pr ovi des a tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons per i od forper s onalW e n o te in p a ss in g ( a s d id th e D istric t C o u rt) th a t th is 6 ti m e b ar p rov ides an ad d it ion al ba sis fo r dism issal of M it ch ell ’s ma l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n c l a i ms i n s o f a ra s s u c h c l a i ms r e l yo n th e two 19 97 arr est s. 10 i nj uryact i ons . 42 Pa. C ons . St at . § 5524. T hus , beca us e i ti s a per s onal i nj uryact i on, M itc h e ll’ s s ta te -l a w b a s e d a b u s e o f p ro c e s s c la im is g o v e rn e d b y4 2 P a . C o n s . S ta t. § 55 24 . M oreove r, un der G arci a, M i t chell ’s fede ral § 1 98 3 ab use of process cl ai m i s al so governed bythi s tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons per i od. 471 U . S. at276; s ee a l s o R os e v. B art l e, 871 F. 2d 331, 348 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( “Penns y l vani a’ s tw o- y earl i m i t at i ons per i od for p erso n al i n

juryac ti o n s is ap p li ca b le i n [§ ] 19 8 3 ac ti o n s. ”). M itch e ll co n ten d s th a t D e f e n d a n t O ’D o n n e ll, a c tin g in c o n c e rt w ith D e f e n d a n ts W i es tand G uzi ck, pervert ed the bur gl aryand di s or der l yconductpr os ecut i ons i n s uch a
m anneras t o pr ovi de hi s ex- w i fe w i th l ever age a gai ns thi m i n the then- pendi ng di vor ce a c tio n . T h e b u rg lar yc h a rg e w a s b ro u g h t in M a y1 9 9 7 a n d re so lv e d in late 1 9 9 7 o r e a rly 1 9 9 8 ; th e d iso rd e rlyc o n d u c t ch a rg e w a s in stitu ted in D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 7 a n d re so lv e d in J anuary1998. I n R os e, w e not ed thatan abus e of pr oces s cl ai m acc rues w hen the pl ai nt i ff f

i r s tdi s cover s hi s orheri nj ury– typi cal l ythe dat e thatthe pl ai nt i ff i s arr es t ed or the unt ow ar d t hr eat s ar e made. R os e, 871 F. 2d at350- 52. I ti s cl ear , ther efor e, that M i t chel l ’ s C om pl ai nt , fi l ed February4, 2002, i s t i m e barr ed i ns ofaras i tal l eges abus e of pr oces s as t o t hos e pr os ecut i ons . I ndeed, even a s s um i ng ar guendo thatthe ca us e of 6 act i on di d notacc rue unt i l Spr i ng 1999, w hen the purpor t edl ycons pi r acy - l ace d di vor ceB yw ayof a s i ngl e and concl us orys ent ence i n hi s br i ef, 7 M i t chel l att empt s t o avoi d thi s t i m e barbyr efe r enci ng the “cont i nui ng vi ol at i ons ” doctr i ne. A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at10- 11. T he cont i nui ng vi ol at i ons doctr i ne “i s an equi t abl e ex ce pt i on t o the ti m el yfi l i ng r equi r ement ” and hol ds that“w hen a de fenda nt ’s con du ct i s part of a con t i nu i ng pract i ce, [a l egal] act i on i s t i m el yso lo n g a s th e las t ac t e v id e n c in g th e c o n tin u in g p ra c tice f a lls w ith in the l i m i t at i ons per i od. ” C ow el l v. Pal m er T ow ns hi p, 263 F. 3d 286, 2 9 2 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( i n t e rn a l c i t a t i o n a n d q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . As di s cus s ed more ful lyi n the above t ext , M i t chel l w as pr os ecut ed again fro m N ovember1999 t o J anuary2001 – dat es w i thi n the l i m i t at i on s peri od – fo r har assm ent, st al king, and t err ori stthreat s. T he l at er pr os ecut i on, how ever , i s nots o i nt err el at ed w i th the 1997 char ges a s t o cons t i tut e a c ont i nui ng pr act i ce a nd, ther efor e, M itch e ll’s an e m ic c itatio n to th e c o n tin u in g v io latio n s d o c trin e is unavai l i ng. 11 p roc ee d ing s b etw ee n M it ch ell an d h is ex -w ife c o n clud ed , itis ap p are n t th at M it ch ell ’s abu se of p rocess cl ai m s ar e t i m e barr ed as t o the tw o 1 99 7 arr est s. 7 I n contr as t , M i t chel l ’ s cl ai m forabus e of pr oces s s t emm i ng fr om hi s pr os ecut i on forhar as s m ent , s t al ki ng, and t err or i s t i c thr eat s i s pot ent i al l yact i onabl e. T hatpr os ecut i on
w a s in stitu ted in N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 9 a n d w a s te rm in a ted b yw a yo f a ju ry ’s v e rd ict in J anuary2001. U nl i ke mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on, w hi ch i s i l l egi t i m at e fr om i t s i ncept i on, an a b u se o f p ro c e ss o c c u rs w h e n a “ p ro se c u tio n is in iti a ted leg iti m a tely[ b u t] th e re a f ter is
us ed fora purpos e otherthan thati nt ended bythe l aw . ” J enni ngs v. Shum an, 567 F. 2d 1213, 1217 ( 3d C i r . 1977) ; s ee a l s o M cG ee v. Feege, 535 A . 2d 1020, 1023 ( Pa. 1987) (“ M a licio u s [ p ro se c u tio n ] . . . h a s to d o w ith th e w ro n g f u l in iti a tio n o f

. . . [th e leg a l] p ro c e ss , w h ile a b u se o f c iv il p ro c e ss is c o n c e rn e d w ith a p e rv e rsio n o f a p ro c e ss a f

ter it i sB eca us e M i t chel l has not s how n any under l y i ng vi ol at i on 8 of hi s r i ght s , w e w i l l al s o aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of h is a lleg a tio n s o f

c o n sp ira c y . S im ilarly , b e c a u se M itch e ll f a iled to s how anydepr i vat i on of hi s r i ght s , w e n ee d n o t de ci de w hether G uzi ck or W i es t ( l aw y er s i n a pr i vat e l aw fi r m ) act ed “undercol or of l aw ” forpurpos es of a § 1983 a ct i on. i s s ued. ”) . T o es t abl i s h a cl ai m forabus e of pr oces s , a pl ai nt i ff musts how evi dence of an actorthr eatnotauthor i zed bythe pr oces s orai m ed atan i l l egi t i m at e obj ect i ve. B r i s t ow
v. C l evenge r , 80 F. Supp. 2d 421, 430- 31 ( M . D . Pa. 2000) ; M cG ee, 535 A . 2d at1023. T he r ecor d i n t hi s cas e cont ai ns no evi dence thatM i t chel l ’ s pr os ecut i on for har as s m ent , s t al ki ng, and t err or i s t i c thr eat s w as pervert ed i n anym annert o achi eve a n ill e g iti m a te e n d . M itch e ll’s d iv o rc e p ro c e e d in g s h a d ter m in a ted se v e ra l m o n th s p rio r to N ovember1999; thus , ther e ca n be no i nfer ence thatthe pr os ecut i on pr ovi ded G uzi ck and W i es t , as M r s . M i t chel l ’ s l aw y er s , w i th anyl ever age i n thos e pr ocee di ngs . N ordoes t he
re c o rd su p p o rt a f

in d in g th a t D e f

e n d a n ts u se d th e h a ra ss m e n t, stalk in g , an d ter ro ristic threa ts pro sec u ti o n to b lack m ail o r oth erw ise ab u se M it ch ell . W e w il l, there fo re, aff irm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s dis m i ssal of M i t chell ’s abu se of p rocess cl ai m s. 8 V. F o r th e a b o v e sta ted re a so n s, 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.