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 Third C irc uit 12-22-2005 

# W i l son v . Potte 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 . 05-2485

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005

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 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 by 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 more 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
" W i l s on v . P ott e r " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 56. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005/56NOT 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. 05- 2485 RO NAL D E . WI L S ON,

A ppel l ant
v. JO H N E . P O T T E R , P o st M a ste r G e n e ra l; UNI T E D S T AT E S P OS T AL S E RV I CE AGE NC Y; K A R E N R A IN E Y , P la n t M a n a g e r, s in c e re tir e d , U .S .P .S .;

JO H N B O Y L E , M ainten an ce M an ag er; C H A R L E S B A R N E R , M ainten an ce M an ag er; T IM O T H Y B U R K E , P o st M aster; W I L L I A M G O R D Y , Pr evi ous E E O R epr es ent at i ve; C A T H E R IN E M . S H A D E , A / M anag er EE O D i spute R esol uti on s; D A N I A L B E A V E R , U SPS M ai nt enanc e Em pl oy ee; T H E O D O R A B E A V E R , U SPS M ai nt enanc e Em pl oy ee; N U R SI N G SU PE R V I SO R T E D W I L L I A M S, U SPS M ai nt enanc e Em pl oy ee;

M I C H A E L M U SA N T R Y , U SPS M ai nt enanc e Em pl oy ee; D A L E D E N T L E R , U SPS M ai nt enanc e Em pl oy ee; JO H N W O R R E L L , alle g e d F e d e ra l A g e n t, D o m esti c T erro ri st L ea d er, C ri m inal G an g L ea d er; A N T H O N Y W O R R E L L , D o m e stic T e rro rist; W IL L IA M W O R R E L L , P A D o m e stic T e rro rist; C A N D IC E W O R R E L L , D o m e stic T e rro rist; S V E N H A G A V IL , D o m e stic T e rro rist; J OHN R OB I NS ON, p r e v i o u s Di s tr i c tAt t o rn e yS n y d e rCo u n tyP A;

S TANLE Y SAYLOR; J O H N D O E S 1- 5, O ffi ci al s and/ oragent s of Post al Ser vi ce a nd/ orotheragenc i es and al l thos e found t o be ac t i ng i n col l us i on w i th them and t he part i es s o named above; J A N E D O E S 1- 5, O ffi ci al s and/ oragent s of the Pos t al Ser vi ce a nd/ orotheragenc i es and al l thos e found t o be ac t i ng i n col l us i on w i th them and t he part i es s o named above2 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 . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 04- cv- 2192 (H o n o rab le Jo h n E . Jo n es, II I) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber14, 2005 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, FI SH E R and A L D I SE R T C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed D ece m ber22, 2005) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
P E R C U R I A M. In th is e m p lo ym e n t d isc rim in a tio n a c tio n , A p p e llan t, R o n a ld E . W ilso n , ap p e a ls pr o s e fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng the A ppel l ees ’ m ot i ons t o di s m i s s . Forthe
r e a s o n s th a tf

o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. T h e p a rt ie s a re f

a m ilia r w ith th e f

a c ts , s o w e w ill o n ly b ri e f ly re v is it th e m h e re . W i l s on, a form erU ni t ed St at es Post al Ser vi ce e m pl oy ee, fi l ed a c om pl i antw i th the Equal E m pl oym entO ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on ( “EE O C ”) al l egi ng di s cr i m i nat i on bas ed on age , di s abi l i ty , r el i gi on, and r et al i at i on. T he EE O C adopt ed the fi ndi ngs of an a dm i ni s tr at i ve l aw j udge w ho had i s s ued a de ci s i on i n favorof the Pos t al Ser vi ce. W i l s on r ece i ved
n o tic e o f th e E E O C ’s f

in a l d e c is io n o n J u n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 .T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed W i l s on’ s or i gi nal compl i antforfai l i ng t o m eetthe 1 pl eadi ng r equi r ement s of Fed. R . C i v. P. 8, and gr ant ed W i l s on l eave t o fi l e an a m ended c o m p lain t. 3 O n O c to b e r 4 , 2 0 0 4 , W ilso n f iled a p ro se c o m p lain t, w h ich h e late r a m e n d e d , in 1 the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, al l egi ng thatthe Post al Ser vi ce, the Pos t m as t erG ener al , and s ever al Post al Ser vi ce e m pl oy ees vi ol at ed T i t l e VI I o f

th e Ci v i l Ri g h t s Ac to f 1 9 6 4 ( “ T i t l e VI I ” ) , o b s tru c t e d th e u n d e r l y i n g E E OC admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs , deni ed hi s fede r al cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , and vi ol at ed var i ous c r i m i n a l l a w s . W i l s o n a l s o c l a i m e d th a tth e f o r m e rD i s tr i c tA t t o rn e y o f S n yd e rC o u n ty, P e n n sy lv a n ia, b ro u g h t f riv o lo u s c rim in a l ch a rg e s a g a in st h im in 1 9 8 6 a n d f a iled to p ro s e c u te s e v e ra l in d iv id u a ls w h o h a d c o m m itte d c ri m in a l o f f e n s e s a g a in s t W ils o n . T h o se in d ividu als, w h o w ere also n am ed in the co m p lai n t ( an d w h o are ref erred to h ere and bythe D i s tr i ctC our tas the “non- Feder al D efe ndant s ”) , al l egedl y“cons pi r ed t o and di d conducta cr i m i nal ent erpr i s e i n and of ha r as s m entand i nt i m i dat i on of w i tnes s es and vi ct i m s , i ncl udi ng butnotl i m i t ed t o t err or i s tact i vi tyi n and aboutpl ai nt i ff’ s hom e and fami l y , . . . t err or i zi ng w om en and c hi l dr en, and di r ect i ng and r ecrui t i ng other s t o do the
s ame . . . . ” A m ended Com pl ai nt , ¶ 21. R obi ns on and the Pos t al Ser vi ce de fenda nt s fi l ed s epar at e mot i ons t o di s m i s s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed thos e mot i ons , and dec l i ned t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i onT he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o deni ed W i l s on’ s m ot i ons fordefa ul tj udgm entand t o s tr i ke 2 th e d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n to d ism iss , w h ich w e re b a se d o n th e d e f e n d a n ts’ a lleg e d f

a ilu re to fi l e t i m el yr es pons es aft ers ervi ce of the amended compl ai nt . W i l s on does notchal l enge thi s por t i on of the dec i s i on. See K os tv. K ozaki ew i cz, 1 F. 3d 176, 182 ( 3d C i r . 1993) (no ti n g that issue s n o t r aised o n ap p ea l are d ee m ed ab an d o n ed an d w aive d ). 4 overthe r emai ni ng cl ai m s br oughtagai ns tthe non- Feder al D efe ndant s . I n part i cul ar , the 2 D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatT i t l e V I I w as W i l s on’ s excl us i ve r emedyagai ns tthe Pos t al Ser vi ce de fenda nt s , thatthe Ti t l e V I I act i on coul d pr ocee d agai ns tonl ythe Pos t m as t er G ener al as the hea d of the empl oy i ng agenc y , and thatW i l s on’ s T i t l e V I I act i on w as unt i m el yfi l ed. T he D i s tr i ctC our tfurtherfound thatform erD i s tr i ctA t t orneyR obi ns on w a s e n tit led to p ro se c u to ria l im m u n itya n d , alte rn a tiv e ly , tha t cla im s p e rta in in g to W il so n ’s crim inal p rose cu ti o n w ere b arred b yH ec k v . H u m p h rey , 5 1 2 U . S . 4 7 7 (19 9 4 ), and w er e fi l ed bey ond the appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . A s t o the cl ai m s agai ns tthe
non- Feder al D efe ndant s , the D i s tr i ctC our thel d thati tdi d nothave a uthor i tyt o gr ant W i l s on’ s r eques tt o i ni t i at e cr i m i nal char ges , and dec l i ned t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r s ta te la w c la im s w ith n o f e d e ra l n e x u s . T h is a p p e a l f o llo w e d . T h is C o u rth as ju ri sd ict ion p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e e x erc ise p lena ry r evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng the A ppel l ees ’ m ot i ons t o di s m i s s . See G all o v . C ityo f P h il ad elph ia, 1 6 1 F . 3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). B ec au se w e a re r evi ew i ng the gr antof a mot i on t o di s m i s s , w e ac ceptas true al l fac tual al l egat i ons i n the compl ai ntand vi ew them i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o W i l s on. See D oug G r ant , I nc. v. G r eat e B ayC as i no C orp. , 232 F. 3d 173, 183 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ct5

C our t ’ s deci s i on t o r efr ai n fr om exer ci s i ng s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overthe s t at e l aw c la im s f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . E d e ls te in v . W ile n tz , 8 1 2 F .2 d 1 2 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). A D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of a c om pl ai ntpur s uantt o R ul e 8 i s l i kew i s e r evi ew ed for
a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . S e e In re W e s tin g h o u s e S e c . L itig ., 9 0 F .3 d 6 9 6 , 7 0 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). W i l s on al l eged e m pl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on bythe Pos t al Ser vi ce de fenda nt s under
s e v e r a l th e o r i e s o f

l i a b i l i ty, i n c l u d i n g v i o l a t i o n s o f h i s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t s . I m p o r t a n t l y, how ever , T i t l e V I I i s the exc l us i ve r emedyforcl ai m s of di s cr i m i nat i on ar i s i ng outof f e d e ra l e m p lo ym e n t. S e e B ro w n v . G e n e ra l S e rv ic e s A d m in ., 4 2 5 U .S . 8 2 0 , 8 3 5 (1 9 7 6 ). I ndeed, T i t l e V I I pr ovi des fede r al empl oy ees w i th a r emedythatpr ecl udes act i ons for
cons t i tut i onal orothers t atut orycl ai m s . See O w ens v. U ni t ed St at es , 822 F. 2d 408, 410 ( 3d C i r . 1987) . T he onl ypr operdefe ndanti n a Ti t l e V I I act i on i s the hea d of the age ncy in w h ic h th e a lle g e d ly d is c ri m in a to ry a c ts o c c u rr e d . S e e 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e -1 6 (c ). A cc o rdin g ly , the P o stal S erv ice a n d it s em p loy ee s (oth er tha n the P o stm aster) w ere p ro p e rl yd is m is s e d f

ro m th is a c tio n . A T i t l e V I I compl ai ntm us tbe fi l ed i n the D i s tr i ctC ourtw i thi n 90 day s of the
c o m p la in a n t’ s re c e ip t o f a ri g h t- to -s u e le tte r f

ro m th e E E O C . S e e 4 2 U .S .C . 2000e- 5( f) ( 1) ; B ur gh v. B or ough C ounci l of B or ough of M ontr os e, 251 F. 3d 465, 470 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . W i l s on cl ai m ed thathe r ece i ved the EE O C deci s i on on J une 24, 2004. See A m ended Com pl ai nt , ¶ 5. T her efor e, W i l s on had t o fi l e hi s compl ai ntbySept ember22, 2004. H e di d notfi l e the compl ai nt , how ever , unt i l O ct ober4, 2004. W i l s on has ci t ed no6

bas i s foran equi t abl e t ol l i ng of the l i m i t at i ons per i od. A ccor di ngl y , w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatthe Ti t l e V I I cl ai m i s t i m e- barr ed. W i l s on furthercl ai m ed thatform erD i s tr i ctA t t orneyR obi ns on “arr es t ed and pr os ecut ed pl ai nt i ff on f r i vol ous char ges ” and “ i gnor ed compl ai nt s of cr i m i nal act i vi tyat p lain tiff ’s h o m e .” S e e A m e n d e d C o m p lain t, ¶ 2 6 . T h e se a lleg a tio n s c lea rlyre late to R obi ns on i n hi s capa ci tyas D i s tr i ctA t t orney . Pr os ecut or s ar e abs ol ut el yi m m une fr om su its f o r d a m a g e s b ro u g h t p u rsu a n t to § 1 9 8 3 f o r a c tiv iti e s w h ich a re “ in tim a tely
a s s oc i a t e d wi th the j ud i c i a l ph a s e of the c r i mi na l pr oc e s s . ” I mbl e rv. Pa c htman, 42 4 U. S. 4 0 9 , 4 2 7 , 4 3 0 (1 9 7 6 ); s e e a ls o D a v is v . G ru s e m e y e r, 9 9 6 F .2 d 6 1 7 , 6 2 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). W i l s on does notal l ege thatanyof the ac t i vi t i es undert aken byform erD i s tr i ctA t t orney Ro b i n s o n we r e o u t s i d e th e s c o p e o f h i s p r o s e c u t o r i a l i mmu n i ty . M o r e o v e r , th e c l a i ms ar i s i ng fr om W i l s on’ s 1986 pr os ecut i on ar e t i m e- barr ed, s ee K os tv. K ozaki ew i cz, 1 F. 3d 176, 189- 90 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( s t at i ng Penns y l vani a' s tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons appl i es t o § 1983 act i ons ) , and ar e notcogni zabl e bec aus e W i l s on’ s convi ct i on has notbeen i nval i dat ed, s ee H eck, 512 U . S. at486- 87. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o di s m i s s ed w hati tdeemed t o be s t at e l aw cl ai m s br ought againstthe n on -Federal D efen dan t s. A D i stri ctC ou rthas dis cret i on t o d ecl i ne to exerci se s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overs t at e l aw cl ai m s i f the court“has di s m i s s ed al l cl ai m s over w h ich it has o ri g inal juri sd ict ion . ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 6 7 (c)(3). G iven that the D istri ct C o u rt p ro p e rlyd ism iss e d W ilso n ’s c laim s u n d e r f e d e ra l law , itp lain lya c ted w ith in its7

di s cr et i on i n decl i ni ng t o hearhi s cl ai m s unders t at e l aw . See M ai o v. A etna, I nc. , 221 F .3 d 4 7 2 , 4 8 0 n .6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). Fi nal l y , W i l s on s ugges t s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n di s m i s s i ng h is o rig in a l co m p lain t f o r f a ili n g to m e e t th e p lea d in g re q u ire m e n ts o f R u le 8 , an d in f a ili n g to g ra n t h im lea v e to f ile a se c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. T h e F e d e ra l R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re re q u ire th a t a c o m p lain t co n tain “ a sh o rt a n d p lain sta tem e n t o f th e c laim
s how i ng thatthe pl eade ri s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef, ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 8( a) ( 2) , and thateac h
averm entbe “c onci s e, and di r ect , ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 8( e) ( 1) . W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ct C our tthatW i l s on’ s or i gi nal compl ai ntw as “devoi d of anyfac t s w hi ch coul d s uppl y[the defe ndant s ] w i th even the bar es tnot i ce of how theyar e i m pl i cat ed i n thi s m att er . ” I tw as al s o uncl eari f the cl ai m s as s ert ed i n the or i gi nal compl ai ntw er e r el at ed t o thos e br ought b yW ils o n a g a in s t th e P o s tm a s te r G e n e ra l in a s e p a ra te b u t r e c e n tly d is m is s e d a c tio n . F u rth e rm o re , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n b yf a ili n g to g ra n t lea v e to f ile
a se c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. W ilso n n e v e r so u g h t su c h lea v e f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt, a n d a n ya m e n d m e n t w o u ld h a v e b e e n f u til e . S e e Ja b lo n sk i v . P a n A m e ric a n W o rld A i rw ay s , I nc. , 863 F. 2d 288, 292 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( expl ai ni ng that“amendm entof the compl ai nti s fut i l e i f the amendm entw i l l notcur e the def i ci encyi n the or i gi nal compl ai nt o r i f th e a m en d ed co m p lai n t can n o t w ith stan d a re n ew ed m o ti o n to d ism iss”). 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 ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.