2009 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 5-5-2009 

# Rory W al sh v . U SA 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 . 08-2970

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_2009

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 2009 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 " Rory W al sh v . U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1400. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1400NOT 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. 08- 2970

___________ RO RY M . WALS H, A ppel l ant

v. T HE UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ; T HE DE P AR T M E NT OF T HE NAVY; M A J. G E N . JE R R Y D . H U M B L E ; L T . G E N . M IC H A E L J. B Y R O N ; M A J. G E N . T H O M A S F . G H O R M L E Y ; G E N E R A L JA M E S L . JO N E S , JR .; C O L O N E L R IC H A R D M . W E N Z E L L ; S P E C IA L A G E N T W E S T ; C O L O N E L M . W . M C E R L E A N ; L T . CO L . P AUL D. RO Y

____________________________________ 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. 05- cv- 00818) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC . C onner

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay1, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FU E N T E S A N D A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay5, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________T he co m plai nt di d n ot s pecifyhis date of dis charge, bu ti n lat er pl eadings, W al sh 1 s t at ed thathe r et i r ed i n 1996. 

### 2 P E R C UR I AM B ecause the part i es ar e fam i l i ar w i t h the hi st oryand fact s of t he case, and becau se th e D istric t C o u rt’s m e m o ra n d a a n d o rd e rs d e tail a ll th e re lev a n t alle g a tio n s a n d e v e n ts d u ri n g the y ea rs of

li ti g ati o n , w e w il l no t r ec o u n t th em at l en g th. B ri ef ly , ap p ell an t R o ry M . W al s h i s a form eroffi cerof the U ni t ed St at es M ar i nes w ho br oughtthi s ci vi l act i on agai ns tt he U ni t ed St at es , t he D epart m entof the N avy , and s ever al curr entand form er m il it aryo ff

icers. W alsh ’s all eg ati o n s inc lud e tha t i n 1 9 8 4 , w h il e h e w as stati o n ed ab o ard t he U . S. S. I nchon, defe ndantSpeci al A gentW es topened W al s h’ s per s onal m ai l and d isc lo se d th e c o n ten ts to d e f e n d a n t L t. C o l. P a u l D . R o y . W a lsh re p o rte d th e m a tter to d e f e n d a n t C o l. R ic h a rd M . W e n z e ll, w h o th e n e n g a g e d in re ta lia tio n a g a in s t W a ls h . W alsh also all eg es th at i n 1 9 8 5 , d ef en d an t G en . JerryD . H u m b le gra b b ed W alsh ’s arm and dr agged hi m outof a r oom , and thathe s urr ept i t i ous l ys l i pped ar s eni c i nt o a beve r age s i t t i ng on W al s h’ s des k. W al s h beca m e i l l aft eri m bi bi ng the beve r age, butthe ca us e of hi s i l l nes s w as undet erm i ned. Fur t her , W al s h al l eged thati n 1986, G en. M i chae l J . B yr on p l a c e d c l a s s i f

i e d s e c u r i t yd o c u me n t s o n W a l s h ’ s d e s k a n d i n h i s ma i l i n a t t e mp t s t o f r a me W al s h fores pi onage. W a l s h s t a t e d t h a th e e n d u r e d ye a r s o f i l l n e s s a f

t e rh i s d i s c h a r g e f

r o m th e m i l i t a r y. 1 In Ju n e 2 0 0 3 , h e w a s d iag n o se d w ith a n a rse n ic- re late d d ise a se . In O c to b e r 2 0 0 3 , w h ile

### 3

w at ching a t el evis i on program on ars enic poi soning, he co ncluded that G en. H um ble m ust have putar s eni c i n hi s dr i nk, t her ebycaus i ng hi s det er i or at i ng heal t h. In 2 0 0 4 , W alsh su b m itted a claim fo r his injuries p u rsua n t t o the F ed era l T o rt Cl a i ms Ac t , 2 8 U. S . C. § § 2 6 7 1 - 2 6 8 0 . De f e n d a n tCo l . M . W . M c Er l e a n r e j e c t e d th e c l a i m, al l egedl ybas ed upon a l et t erbydefe ndantG en. T hom as F. G hor m l eyt o t he B oar d for C o rre c tio n o f

N a v a l R e c o rd s (“ B C N R ” ) in 1 9 9 9 . T h is s a m e lette r a lso n e g a tiv e ly i m pact ed W al s h’ s t hen- pendi ng B C N R pet i t i on and ens ur ed thathe w oul d be barr ed fr om f u tu re a c tiv e d u ty . In 2 0 0 5 , a m ili tar yo f f icia l re q u e ste d W a lsh to re tu rn to a c tiv e d u tyto s erve i n I r aq, butW al s h s t at ed thatdefe ndantG en. J ames L. J ones di r ect ed G en. G hor m l eyt o denyt he r eques tbeca us e W al s h w as pr i vyt o cert ai n m i s conductthat al l egedl yoccurr ed w hi l e G en. J ones w as the comm andi ng offi cerof a mar i ne expedi t i onaryuni ti n 1990 and 1991. W al s h al s o cont ended thati n 2005, G en. J ones di s pat ched N aval I nt el l i gence agent s t o br eak i nt o W al s h’ s hom e, and thattheyt ook W al sh’s m i l i t aryhats and corr espon den ce add res sed t o an d from G en. Jones. W al sh al l eged thatG en. J ones w as r es pons i bl e fors ever al m or e br eak- i ns byN aval I nt el l i gence agent s betw een 2005 a nd 2007. W al sh fi l ed h i s com plai nt i n D i stri ctC ou rti n A pri l 20 05 , as l at er am end ed. W al sh al l eged thathi s ci r cul at or yand nervous s y s t ems have been pe r m anent l ydamaged fr om t he a rs e n ic p o is o n in g , a n d th e d e f e n d a n ts w e re n e g lig e n t in f a ilin g to in v e s tig a te th e m a tte r. W al s h r ai s ed cl ai m s undert he Four th A m endment , the Pr i vacyA ct , 42 U . S. C . § 1986,A s s t at ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t , the Fer es doctr i ne bar s l aw s ui t s fi l ed bys ervi ce 2 m ember s fori nj ur i es t hat“ar i s e outof orar e i n t he cour s e of a ct i vi t yi nci dentt o s ervi ce. ” F ere s v . U n it ed S tat es, 34 0 U . S . 1 3 5 , 1 4 6 (19 5 0 ). 

### 4 a n d v a r i o u s f

e d e r a l c r i m i n a l s t a tu t e s . T h e m a t t e rp r o c e e d e d t o d i s c o v e r y. T he governm entfi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s the cl ai m s as bei ng barr ed bythe Fer es doctr i ne, t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , and fa i l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m . W al s h fi l ed a mot i on for

2 s um m aryj udgm entbas ed upon the def endant s ’ fai l ur e t o t i m el yr es pond t o admi s s i ons s ubm i t t ed byW al s h. N ot i ng t hatt he governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s w as pendi ng, the D i s t r i ctC our ts t ay ed br i efi ng of W al s h’ s m ot i on and di r ect ed the governm entt o s how ca u se f o r i ts fail u re to res p o n d . U p o n the g o v ern m en t’ s sh o w ing , the D istri ct C o u rt deni ed W al s h’ s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on, fi ndi ng excus abl e negl ecton t he partof the governm entand al l ow i ng t he governm entan enl ar gementof t i m e t o r es pond. T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen gr ant ed the def endant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s as t o al l cl ai m s exce ptt he Four t h and Fi fth A m endmentcl ai m s agai ns tG en. J ones and the D epart m entof the N avy as t heyr el at ed t o t he M ar ch 2005 bur gl aryof W al s h’ s r es i dence . C oncerni ng the di s m i s s ed cl ai m s , t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatanyar guabl e t or tal l eged byW al s h w as b arred b ythe F ere s d o ctri n e, an d ev en if th e d o ctri n e d id n o t app ly , the c lai m s w ere barr ed byt he appl i cabl e s t atut es of l i m i t at i ons . R egar di ng the Pr i vacyA ctcl ai m , the D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatW al s h had notnamed t he corr ectpart yas a def endantand that the c lai m w as a lso b arred b ythe s tatu te of li m it ati o n s. F u rth er, th e D istri ct C o u rt di s m i s s ed the cl ai m s s eeki ng enfor cementof fe der al cr i m i nal s t atut es , as no pr i vat e r i ght

### 5

o f a c tio n f o r e n f o rc e m e n t ex ists. In a d d iti o n , the D istric t C o u rt a g a in n o ted th a t ev e n if t hos e cl ai m s w er e vi ew ed as t or tcl ai m s , theyw er e barr ed bythe Fer es doctr i ne orthe st atute of l i m i t at i on s. T h e lit ig a tio n c o n tin u e d , an d se v e ra l d isp u tes a ro se re q u irin g th e D istric t C o u rt to ru le o n se v e ra l m a tters , inc lu d in g th e d e n ial o f W a lsh ’s r e q u e st to jo in c e rta in in d iv id u a ls as defe ndant s bas ed on thei ral l eged t amper i ng w i t h a di s coverydocument . A l s o i n t he i nt er i m , t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i on t o di s m i s s fi l ed bythe def endant s U ni t ed St at es and the D epart m entof the N avyon t he gr ound of s over ei gn i m m uni t y . A tthe concl us i on of di s covery , bot h W al s h and the r emai ni ng defe ndant , G en. J ones , fi l ed m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed G en. J ones ’ s m ot i on and deni ed W al s h’ s m ot i on, not i ng t hatthe r ecor d w as devoi d of anyevi dence demonstr at i ng t hatG en. J ones w as di r ect l yori ndi r ect l yi nvol ved i n t he conduc tal l eged byW al s h. T his app eal foll ow ed. W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W al sh chal l enges a numberof the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der s , i ncl udi ng the deni al of hi s m ot i ons for s um m aryj udgm ent , t he gr ant i ng of G en. J ones ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , the d ism issal of

sev era l cl aim s, d en ial o f jo ind er o f in d ividu als as d ef en d an ts, an d d isco v ery rul i ngs . U pon r evi ew of the r ecor d, fors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons gi ven i n t he D i s t r i c tC o u r t ’ s o r d e r s a n d o p i n i o n s , w e w i l l a f f i r m th e D i s t r i c tC o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t . We h a v e c o n sid e re d th e a rg u m e n ts in th e p a rties ’ b rie f s a n d n o te th a t m a n yo f th e iss u e s m e ritW al s h conce des t hats ever al of hi s cl ai m s ar e barr ed bythe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , and 3 he does notcont es tt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i ons r egar di ng the Pr i vacyA ctcl ai m s or t hat W al sh has no pri vate r i gh tof ac t i on un der the fe deral cri m i nal s t atutes . 

### 6 no fur t herdi s cus s i on. 3 W e w i l l br i efl yaddr es s s ever al of W al s h’ s ar gum ent s on appea l . Fi r s t , w e have r evi ew ed W al s h’ s ar gum ent s i n hi s br i efs and i n hi s s ubm i s s i on underR ul e 28( j ) , Feder al R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e, t hatthe governm entvol unt ar i l yw ai ved i t s s over ei gn i m m uni t yr egar di ng t he cl ai m s agai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es and the D epart m entof the N avy beca us e the def

ens e w as notr ai s ed unt i l aft erdi s coveryhad begun. T hi s ar gum ent , as w el l as hi s ot herar gum entt hati m m uni t ym aybe abr ogat ed t o pr ot ecthi s cons t i tut i onal ri g h ts , re ly o n c a s e s in v o lv in g s ta te s ’ i m m u n itie s u n d e r t h e E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t. W a lsh ’s a ttem p t to e q u a te th e f e d e ra l d e f

e n d a n ts w ith sta tes in th e c o n tex t o f h is ar gum ent s i s unavai l i ng. Sover ei gn i m m uni t ym aybe r ai s ed bya part yatanyt i m e, even o n a p p e a l, a n d a c o u rt m a ys u a s p o n te ra is e th e is s u e a s it r e la te s to its o w n ju ri s d ic tio n . S ee U n it ed S tat es v . B ein, 21 4 F . 3 d 4 0 8 , 4 1 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). S e c o n d , w e re

jec t W a lsh ’s c o n ten tio n th a t th e F e re s d o c trin e d o e s n o t b a r h is s u it a g a in st G e n . H u m b le. W a lsh e m p h a siz e s th a t h e se e k s re c o v e rya g a in st G e n . H u m b le h im se lf , n o t ag a in st th e g o v e rn m e n t, an d th a t F e re s th e re f o re d o e s n o t ap p lyto h is c o m p lain t. In a d d iti o n , W a lsh a lleg e d in h is c o m p lain t th a t H u m b le’ s a ttem p t to k ill h im v io late d h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts, a n d h e a rg u e s th a t h is c laim is n o t b a rre d b e c a u se it i s bas ed on an i nt ent i onal t or t . H ow ever , notw i t hs t andi ng W al s h’ s ar gum ent s ot herw i s e,

### 7

s uch an a ct i on fordamages agai ns ta s uper i oroffi cerdoes nots t and. See C happel l v. W al l ace , 462 U . S. 296, 305 ( 1983) ( s ervi ceman m aynots ue a s uper i oroffi cerfor damages foral l eged c ons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons ) ; J aff ee v. U ni t ed St at es , 663 F. 2d 1226, 1 2 3 4 - 4 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 8 1 ) ( F e r e s d o c t r i n e b a r r e d s e r v i c e ma n ’ s d a ma g e s s u i ta g a i n s tAr my su p erv isors fo r i n tention al t o rt s co m m itted in v iolati o n o f th e C o n sti tuti o n ). T hi r d, w e di s cern no err ori n the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ngs quas hi ng the s ubpoena of defe ns e couns el and l egal as s i s t antand deny i ng W al s h’ s m ot i on t o j oi n R ober tD . H ogue an d M icha el W . H ag ee as d ef en d an ts. In p arti cu lar, w e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s as s es s m entt hatt he al l egat i ons of H ogue and H agee ’ s w r ongdoi ng i n t he cour s e of di s coverydi d nott r ans form t hem i nt o defe ndant s s ubj ectt o j oi nderi n t he ac t i on. W e add t hatW al s h’ s r el i ance on cas es di s cus s i ng j oi nderof cr i m i nal offe ns es and cr i m i nal defe ndant s fort r i al ar e unper s uas i ve i n t hi s i s s ue of j oi nderof def endant s underR ul es 19 and 20 of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. L astl y , w e w il l add ress the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er g ran ti n g G en . Jo n es’s su m m ary j ud gm ent m oti on and den y i ng W al sh’s sum m aryj ud gm ent m oti on , and w e exerci se pl enaryr evi ew overt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on. M cG r eevyv. St oup, 413 F. 3d 359, 363 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e w hen the “pl eadi ngs , the di s coveryand d isc lo su re m a ter ials o n f ile, a n d a n ya f

f id a v its sh o w th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to anym at er i al fac tand thatt he movanti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . A cour tr evi ew i ng a s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on m us teval uat e theT he governm entfi l ed i t s s t at ementof m at er i al fac t s the nextbus i nes s dayaft erfi l i ng 4 i t s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , w hi ch w as the verys ame dayon w hi ch the D i s t r i ct C our tor der ed the governm ent ’ s compl i ance . 

### 8 e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rtya n d d ra w a ll rea so n a b le i nfer ence s i n t hatpar t y ’ s favor . B r ew erv. Q uakerSt at e O i l R ef. C orp. , 72 F. 3d 326, 330 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . H ow ever , a part yoppos i ng s um m aryj udgm ent“mustpr es entm or e than j us t‘ bar e as s er t i ons , concl us or yal l egat i ons ors us pi ci ons ’ t o s how the exi s t ence of a genui ne i s s ue. ” Podobni k v. U . S. Post al Ser v. , 409 F. 3d 584, 594 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng C elotex C o rp. v. C atrett , 4 7 7 U . S . 3 1 7 , 3 2 5 (19 8 6 )). W al s h ar gues , among ot herthi ngs , thatG en. J ones ’ s “bl anketdeni al ” of the al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai ntw as i ns uffi ci entt o m eetthe s um m aryj udgm ents t andar d and defe athi s ow n m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . W al s h cont ends thathi s ow n m ot i on for su m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s s u p p o rte d w ith a m p le e v id e n c e , an d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld have gr ant ed hi s m ot i on i n l i ghtof the governm ent ’ s bel at ed fi l i ng of i t s s t at ementof m at er i al undi s put ed fa ct s i n s uppor tof i t s cr os s - m ot i on. R egar di ng W al s h’ s ar gum ent bas ed on the pr ocedur al t echni cal i t yof the governm ent ’ s bel at ed fi l i ng, w e di s cern no a b u se o f d isc re tio n in th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n tin g th e g o v e rn m e n t an e x ten sio n o f tim e to f i l e i t s s t a t e me n t . As f

o rt h e me r i t s o f

b o t h p a r t i e s ’ s u mm a r yj u d g me n tmo t i o n s , we 4 agree w i t h the D i stri ctC ou rtt hat G en. Jones w as ent i t l ed to sum m aryj ud gm ent. W al sh m ade c oncl us or yacc us at i ons of G en. J ones ’ s i nvol vementi n t he home i nvas i ons but provided n o ev i den ce of such. W al sh con

j ectured athis dep osi t i on that G en. Jones m ustI n hi s r epl ybr i ef, W al s h s eeks r evi ew of the C l erk’ s di s pos i t i ons of eve r ypr ocedur al 5 m ot i on s ubm i t t ed i n t hi s appea l . W e not e thata pr evi ous panel of thi s C our thas deni ed W a l s h ’ s mo t i o n t o v a c a t e a n e a r l i e rCl e r k ’ s o r d e ro n th e ma t t e ro f a n e x t e n s i o n o f

t i me gr ant ed t o couns el fort he appe l l ees under3r d C i r . L A R 31. 4. U pon r evi ew , w e conc l ude t hatW al s h i s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef. 

### 9 h av e b ee n inv o lved b ec au se th e it em s tak en fro m h is ho m e w ere G en . Jo n es’s d isco v ery r es pons es , buthe off

er ed no evi dence i ndepende ntfr om hi s s pecul at i on. N one of the evi dence W al s h s ubm i t t ed, i ncl udi ng pol i ce r epor t s conce r ni ng the br eak- i ns and ques t i onnai r e r es pons es and t es t i m onybyform ernei ghbor s , es t abl i s h t hatG en. J ones had anyconnec t i on t o t he i nci dent s . W e di s cern no err ori n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of t he s um m aryj udgm ents t andar d. In su m , w e h a v e c o n sid e re d th e a rg u m e n ts in W a lsh ’s b rie f s re g a rd in g a ll o f

h is iss u e s a n d f

in d th e m to b e o f

n o m e rit. W e w ill a f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. 5