2007 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 11-19-2007 

# B eck e rm an v . S u squeh ann a P olice P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-1131

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Be cke rm a n v

. S us que h a nn a P o l ic e " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 209. h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/209NOT 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. 06- 1131

__________ 

### MA RK BE CKERMAN, Appe l l ant

v. SU SQ UE HANN A T OW NS HI P P OL I CE andAD MINI ST RA TI ON ; KE VIN S CO TT ; MI CH AE L P ET ER S; OF FI CE R J OHN D OE ;

ERI C N EL SO N

__________ 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 N o. 05- cv- 00349) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll

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

on Sept ember 14, 2007 B efore: R E N D E L L , F U E N T E S and C H A G A R E S , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: N ovember 19, 2007)

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________2

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. A ppel l antM ar k B ecke r m an ( “B ecke r m an”) appea l s fr om t w o or der s i s s ued byt he D istri ct C o u rt . T h e f

ir st, d ated O ctob er 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 , g ran ted a m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm entfi l ed bydefe ndant s Susque hanna Tow ns hi p ( “the Tow ns hi p”) , E r i c N el s on ( “N el s on”) and K evi n Scot t( “Scot t ”) . T he s econd or der , dat ed D ece m ber21, 2005, g ra n te d a m o tio n to d is m is s f ile d b yd e f

e n d a n t M ic h a e l P e te rs (“ P e te rs ” ). 

### Th is Co urt has jur i s di c t i on ove r

the c ons ol i dat e d a

ppe a lpur s uant

t o 28 U. S. C. § 1291. For the r e a s ons statedb elo w , w e w ill af

f irm th e D istrict C o urt o nall g ro un d s.
I. Fa ct s Becker m an is a r es ident of S usqu ehanna To wn ship. Since Marc h o f 2 00 0, he has m ad e o v er th irty

co m p lain ts to th e T o w n sh ip P o lice D ep artm en t; m any th o se co m

p lain ts w ere relatedto th e b eh av io r o f d o g s o w n edb y

h is n eig hb o r, P eters. T hree sp ecif ic inci dents i nv olving Becker m an, Pet er s andthe Susqu ehanna To wn ship Po li ce D ep artm en t ledto th e law su it th at is th e sub j ect o f th is ap p eal. S co tt, a p o lice o f

f icer w ithth e S u squ eh ann a T o w n sh ip P o lice D ep artm en t, re spon ded to a com

plai nt m ade by

Becker m an onMay

26 , 200 3. Becker

m an info rm ed Scott t hat while Becker

m an was wal king his pup py past Pete rs ’ hom e, Pete rs ’ dog s r an t owar ds the puppy , and Be c ke rm an fe ar e d that the y woul d att a c k i t . Be c ke rm an and P eters sub sequ en tly

g o t into anarg um en t ab o ut w h eth er P eters h ada resp o n sib ility to3



### k eep h is d o g s o nh is p ro p erty . B eck erm anrequ estedth at S co tt sp eakto P eters, an dS co tt adv isedP eters to co n tro l h is d o g s. The s e c ond i nc i de nt

t ook pl a c e on Nove m

be r 23, 2003, whe n Pe t e r s l odge d a com plai nt abou t Bec kerm an with the polic e depart m ent. Pete rs st at ed that

Becker m an ye l l e d at hi m t o ke e p hi s dogs i n hi s yar d, a l though Pe t e r s c l a i m s that the dogs ha d not m ov ed. He a ls o state d that Bec kerm an tookph otos of Pete rs ’ dog s andPete rs ’ daugh te r; wh en Beckerm an was quest ioned b y Pete rs abou t t

his behavior, Pete rs cl ai m s that B eck erm anstatedth at h e w as g o in g to k ill P eters’ d o g s. S co tt resp o n d edto P eters’ c om pl a i nt and, a ft e r

s pe aki ng wi th both Pe t e r s and Be c ke rm an, i s s ue d Be c ke rm an a c i t at i on for

har a s s m e nt . Fol l owi ng ahe ar i ng at whi c h Be c ke rm an wa s r e pr e s e nt e d by coun se l, the c it at ion w as subsequently dismis se d; the jud ge in the c as e a dm on is hed B eck erm anto av o idf

urth er co n f

ro n tatio n s w ithP eters. Fi na l l y , on De c e m

be r 18, 2004, Ne l s on ( a l s o apol i c e offi c e r wi th the Su squehann a Tow nship P olic e Depart m ent) re spon ded to a com plai nt by Becker m an that P eters’ d o g s w ere runn in g w ildaro un dth e n eig hb o rh o o d . N elso nin terv iew edP eters’ fourt e e n- ye ar - ol d daught e r , who a dm i tt e d that s he ha d a l l owe d the dogs t o e s c a pe fr om P eters’ yard . Up o nB eck erm an ’s in sisten ce, N elso nissu eda citatio nag ain st P eters’ d au g h ter, an din f

o rm edB eck erm anth at th ere w o u ldb e a h earin ginth e m atter. Be c ke rm an i nform e d Ne l s on that he woul d be br i ngi ng an att orne y t o the he ar i ng;4



### Nels ontold Becker

m an that it was not neces sary

that he have an att orney , but Becker m an statedh e w o u ldb rin g o n e n o n eth eless.

II . Procedural Hist ory On Fe br uary 18, 2005, Be c ke rm an br ought apr o s e s ui t

a ga i ns t the Sus que hanna To wn ship Po li ce Departm ent. Becker m an subsequently

re tained coun se l, and am ended hi s c om pl a i nt on May 2, 2005 ( “ Fi r s t

Am e nde d Com

pl a i nt ” ) t o i nc lude Sc ott , Ne l s on, and Pe t e r s . On May

27, 2005, Be c ke rm an fi l e d an updat e d c om pl a i nt ( “ Se c ond Am ended C om

plai nt”) that

added “JohnDo e” as a defendant. The SecondAm ended Co m plai nt, broug ht un der 42 U .S.C. § 19 83 , a ll eged: ( 1) that Scott violate d B ec kerm an’s “Fourth A m endm ent rights” to “m ov e a bo ut free ly

un re stri ct ed by

un lawf ul po li ce orders and b e freefrom

un re as on able se ar ches and sei zure s; ” ( 2) that Nels onviolat ed Becker m an’s “Fir st

Am endm ent right to ac ce ss the c ourt s; ” ( 3) that Nels on“violate d [Be c ke rm an’ s ] Fourt e e nth Am e ndm e nt r i ght t o e qua lpr ot e c t i on; ” ( 4) that both Sc ott

and Pete rs violat ed Beckerm an’s ri gh t t o b e fre e from m al ic ious prosec ution. Ap pell ant’ s Bri e f at 2. Be c ke rm an a l s o m a de as uppl e m e nt a ls t at e l aw c l a i m a ga i ns t Pe t e r s , s t at i ng that Pe t e r s ha d a s s aul t e d B e c ke rm an i n v i ol at i onof Pe nn s yl vani at or

t l aw. The Towns hip, Sc ott

and Ne l s on ( the “ Towns hip De fe ndant s ” ) we r e s e rve d i n a ti m ely fashion. In re spon se , the To wn ship Defend ants file d a m otion f or summ ar

y

### As not e d pr e vi ous l y , thi s Court ha s jur i s di c t i on ove r

the a ppe a lpur s uant

t o 28 1 

### U. S. C. § 1291. T h e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f B e c k e rm a n ’s c o m p lain t ag a in st P e ter s is a fi nal or der , des pi t e t he fa ctt hati tw as ent er ed w i t houtpr ej udi ce, as B ecke r m an i s t i m eb arred fro m re-fil ing h is co m p lai n t. S ee A h m ed v . D rag o v ich, 29 7 F . 3 d 2 0 1 , 2 0 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). 5 

### ju dg m ent s ee king dismis sa l of the cl ai m s a gainst Scott, Nels onand the To wn ship. That m o tio nw as g ran tedb y

th e D istrict C o urt o nO cto b er 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 . Becker m an did n ot se rve Pet er s untilSeptem ber 2, 200 5, 12 2 d ay s a fter Pete rs had been added as a defendant in the c as e via Becker m an’s Firs t Am ended C om plai nt. Pet er s s ubs e que nt l y

fi l e d am ot i on t o di s m i s s the c l a i m s a ga i ns t hi m pur s uant t o Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 12(b) ( 5) and Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 12(b) ( 6) , and for att orne y s ’ fe e s pur s uant

t o 42 U. S. C § 1988. On D ece m ber21, 2005 

### , the Di s tr i c t Court gr ant e d Pe t e r s ’ m ot i on pur s uant t o Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 12(b) ( 5) ; i t

de c l i ne d t o r e a c h the m e r i t s of the 12(b) ( 6) m ot i on, and thus d en iedP eters’ requ est f

o r atto rn ey s’ f

ees. Thi s c ons ol i dat e d a

ppe a lfol l owe d. 1



### I I . Di s c us s i on A. Sum m ar y Judgm e ntMot i on On a ppe a l , Be c ke rm an ar gue s that the Di s tr i c t

Court e rr e d i n gr ant i ng the Towns hip De fe ndant s s umm ary judgm e nt . W e r e vi e w the Di s tr i c t Court ’ s de c i s i on de novo . See SheetM et al W or ker s ’ I nt ’ l A s s oc. L ocal 19 v. H err e B r os . , I nc. , 201 F. 3d 231, 239 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ; M or t el l i t e v. N ovar t i s C r op Pr ot ect i on, I nc. , 460 F. 3d 483, 488 ( 3dA s B e c k e rm a n d o e s n o t ch a llen g e o n a p p e a l th e D istric t C o u rt’s f in d in g th a t S c o tt 2 di d notvi ol at e B ecke r m an’ s r i ghtt o be fr ee f r om m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on, w e cons i derany a rg u m e n t r e la te d to th a t c la im to b e w a iv e d . 6 C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). 

### H ere, a rev iewo f th e reco rdin d icates th at th e D istrict C o urt w as co rrect to g ran t th e T o w n sh ip D ef

en d an ts summ ary

j u d g m en t o nall co un ts. 2 F i r s t , Be c k e r ma n b a s e d h i s F o u r t h Ame n d me n tc l a i m 

### th at S co tt p rev en tedh im f ro m “m o v [ in g ] ab o ut f

reely unrestrictedb y

un law f u l p o lice o rd ers” an den g ag edin “unreaso n ab le search es an dseizures” s ol el yon Scot t ’ s s t at ement t o B ecke r m an thathe s houl d cons i derw al ki ng hi s dog on back tr ai l s behi nd hi s ow n hous e, as oppos ed t o on t he s t r eetnearPet er s ’ hom e. A ppel l ant ’ s B r i ef a t2. A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tdul ynot ed, s uch a s t at ement , s t andi ng al one, does notcons t i tut e a “ s ei zur e” w i t hi n t he meani ng of t he F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. A n in d iv id u a l is “ se ize d ” f o r F o u rth A m e n d m e n t p u rp o se s o n ly w hen hi s orhergener al fr eedom of m ovement i s r es t r ai ned byphy s i cal for ce ora s how of author i t yt o t he ext entt hata r eas onabl e per s on “w oul d have be l i eved he [ors he] w as not fr ee t o l eave . ” U . S. v. M endenha l l , 446 U . S. 544, 553- 54 ( 1980) . T he r ecor d her e does n o t su p p o rt th e f

in d in g th a t a r e a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ld h a v e c o n sid e re d S c o tt’s sta tem e n t, w h ich c o n sis ted o f

a su g g e stio n a b o u t h o w B e c k e rm a n m ig h t av o id f u tu re c o n f

lict w ith hi s nei ghbor , as a r es t r i ct i on on B ecke r m an’ s fr eedom of m ovement . I n addi t i on, t he D istric t C o u rt w a s c o rre c t to p o in t o u t th a t B e c k e rm a n ’s c laim th a t S c o tt v io late d h is F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t “ ri g h t to tr a v e l” c a n n o t b e s u s ta in e d , a s n o s u c h ri g h t e x is ts .B ot h t he Tow ns hi p D efe ndant s and the D i s t r i ctC our tm i s t akenl ys t at e t hat 3 B ecke r m an coul d nothave be en deni ed “a cce s s t o t he cour t s ” bec aus e he di d i n fac thave couns el pr es entat“t he hea r i ng. ” See Beckerm an v. Susque hanna Tow ns hi p, et . al , N o. C iv . 1 :C V -0 5 -0 3 4 9 , 2 0 0 5 W L 2 5 9 1 8 0 9 a t * 3 (M .D . P a . O c t. 13 , 2 0 0 5 ); T o w n sh ip D efe ndant s ’ A ppel l ee Bri ef a t14- 15. H ow ever , t her e w er e t w o hear i ngs t hatt ook pl ace dur i ng t he cour s e of the eve nt s t hatl ed t o t hi s l aw s ui t : ( 1) t he hea r i ng atw hi ch a c i t at i on agai ns tB ecke r m an w as di s m i s s ed fol l ow i ng t he 2003 i nci denti n w hi ch B ecke r m an al l egedl yhar as s ed Pet er s and t hr eat ened t o ki l l Pet er s ’ dogs ; and ( 2) t he hea r i ng atw hi ch Pet er s ’ daught erw as i s s ued a c i t at i on fort he 2004 i nci dentw her e Pet er s ’ daught er al l ow ed Pet er s ’ dogs t o r oam t he nei ghbor hood. I ti s cl eart hatB ecke r m an w as repr esent ed b ycou nsel att he h eari ng for t he 2 00 3 inci den t(w here t he cit at i on against B ecke r m an w as di s m i s s ed) ; how ever , not hi ng i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatB ecke r m an br oughtan at t or neyt o t he 2004 hea r i ng i nvol vi ng Pet er s ’ daught er( and B ecke r m an asse rt s tha t he d id n o t) . 7 Second, N el s on’ s s t at ement t o B ecke r m an thatB ecke r m an di d notneed t o br i ng a l aw y ert o t he ci t at i on hear i ng forPet er s ’ daught erdi d notcons t i tut e a vi ol at i on of B ecke r m an’ s Fi r s tA m endment r i ghtt o acc es s t he cour t s . T o demonst r at e t hata per s on 3 has been de ni ed ac ces s t o t he cour t s , he ors he must“demonstr at e t hata def endantcaus ed ‘actual i njur y ’. . . i . e. , t oo k o r w as r espon si ble for act i on s t hat ‘ hindered [a p l ai nti ff' s] eff or t s t o pur s ue a l egal cl ai m . ’ ” M ons kyv. M or aghan, 127 F. 3d 243, 247 ( 2d C i r . 1997) ( quot i ng L ew i s v. C as ey , 518 U . S. 343, 351 ( 1996) ) . H er e, t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat B e c k e r m a n w a s n o td e n i e d a c c e s s t o t h e h e a r i n g o rp r e v e n t e d f r o m b r i n g i n g a n a t t o r n e y; N e lso n sim p lysta ted th a t itw a s n o t n e c e ss a ryf o r B e c k e rm a n to h a v e a n a tto rn e yp re se n t, an d B ec k erm an all eg ed lyrep li ed that h e w o u ld b ri n g an att o rne yan yw ay . B ec k erm an ’s cl ai m s t hathe w as “i nt i m i dat ed” byN el s on, and thathe di d notbr i ng a l aw y ert o t he h e a ri n g o u t o f

“ f e a r,” a re im p o s s ib le to s q u a re w ith th e c o n te n t o f N e ls o n ’s s ta te m e n t. T h o se c lai m s are also d ifficu ltto rec o n cil e w ith the f ac t th at B ec k erm an w as w ell aw are8

of hi s abi l i t yt o br i ng an att or neyt o s uch a he ar i ng; i n fac t , t he pr i ory earB ecke r m an had empl oy ed an a t t or neyata s i m i l arhear i ng i n a s ucce s s ful bi d t o have a ci t at i on i s s ued agai ns thi m di s m i s s ed. C ons equent l y , t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatB ecke r m an s uffe r ed no “act ual i njur y ” t hat coul d co nst i tute a vi olat i on of h i s r i gh tt o acce ss the co urt s. F in a lly , itis c lea r th a t B e c k e rm a n d id n o t ar ticu late f a c ts th a t w o u ld su p p o rt h is equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m ( pr emi s ed on a “ cl as s of one” t heor y ) , as t her e i s s i m pl yno e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u g g e s tt h a tB e c k e r m a n w a s “ i n t e n t i o n a l l y t r e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y” b yth e to w n s h ip th a n o th e rs w h o lo d g e d c o m p la in ts a b o u t th e ir n e ig h b o rs . S e e , e .g ., V il lage o f W il low b roo k v . O lech , 5 2 8 U . S . 5 6 2 , 5 6 4 (20 0 0 ). 

### B . M o tio n to D ism iss B eck erm analso asserts th at th e D istrict C o urt erreding ran tin g P eters’ m o tio nto dismis s pursuant t o F ed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). Our r evie w o f the Distri ct Co urt' s dis m is sa l is p len ary . S ee U m

b enh au er v . Wo o g , 9 6 9 F .2 d2 5 , 2 8 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 2 ). A s n o t e d a b o v e , B e c k e r m a n s e r v e d P e t e r s w i t h a c o p y o f t h e c o m p l a i n t1 2 2 d a ys aft er the F i rs tA m end ed C om plai nt ( w hich w as t he fir stversi on of the com plai nt t o li st Pet er s as a def

endant ) w as or i gi nal l yfi l ed, and tw o day s pas tt he s t atut or y120- day deadl i ne. See Fed. R . C i v. P. 4( m ) . B ecke r m an di d notdi s put e t hatt he compl ai ntw as se rv e d in a n u n tim e lym a n n e r; in ste a d , h e so u g h t an e x ten sio n f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt, w h ic h m a yb e s e c u re d in c a s e s w h e re a p la in tif f c a n d e m o n s tr a te “ g o o d c a u s e .” S e e , e .g ., P e tr u c e lli v . B o h ri n g e r a n d R a tz in g e r, G M B H , 4 6 F .3 d 1 2 9 8 , 1 3 0 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).9

H ere , the D istri ct C o u rtw as c o rrect t o fin d n o g o o d ca u se to ex cu se B ec k erm an ’s fai l ur e t o t i m el ys er ve t he compl ai nton Pet er s . B ecke r m an cl ai m s t hatPet er s at t empt ed t o evade B ecke r m an’ s at t empt s t o s er ve hi m . H ow ever , as t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed, B e c k e rm a n p ro v id e d n o e v id e n c e to su p p o rt th is a ss e rtio n o th e r th a n u n sig n e d a f f id a v its w hi ch r efl ectt hatB ecke r m an att empt ed t o s er ve Pet er s a fe w t i m es att he begi nni ng of t he s er vi ce pe r i od, and aga i n att he end of t he s er vi ce pe r i od. T he r ecor d does not demonst r at e t hatB ecke r m an made cons i s t enteff or t s t o s er ve Pet er s , w ho l i ved ac r os s t he s t r eetfr om B ecke r m an, t hr oughoutt he s er vi ce pe r i od. M or eover , t her e i s no evi dence t hatB ecke r m an advi s ed t he D i s t r i ctC our tdur i ng t he s er vi ce pe r i od of anydi ffi cul t i es he m ayhave ha d i n s er vi ng Pet er s ; nordi d B ecke r m an s eek a n ext ens i on of t he s er vi ce p e rio d p rio r to its e x p ira tio n . C o n se q u e n tly , w e f in d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in d ism iss in g th e c o m p lain t ag a in st P e ter s b a se d o n its d e ter m in a tio n th a t B e c k e rm a n d id n o t d e m o n s tr a te g o o d c a u s e f o r f a ilin g to tim e ly se rv e P e te rs . 

### I V . Conc l us i on For t he r eas ons s etfor t h above, w e w i l l A FFIRM t he O ct ober13, 2005 and D e c e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 o rd e rs o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .