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 11-27-2009 

# D on ald P ic ano v

. Eme rson 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 . 08-3208

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 " D on ald P icano v

. E me r s on" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 192. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/192NOT 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- 3208

_____________ D O N A L D P IC A N O , A ppel l ant v. B O R O U G H O F E M E R S O N , a N e w Je rse ym u n icip a l co rp o ra tio n ; J OSE P H SC ARP A i n d i v i d u a l l ya n d a s BOROUGH ADM I NI S TRAT OR

OF T HE BO RO UGH OF E M E RS ON A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- cv- 02652) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Pet erG . Sher i dan Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember17, 2009 B efore: R E N D E L L , B A R R Y and C H A G A R E S , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: N ovember27, 2009 ) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. Pl ai nt i ff D onal d Pi cano br oughtthi s cas e under42 U . S. C . § 1983 agai ns tthe B or ough of Em er s on, N ew J er s ey , w her e he r es i des , and aga i ns tthe B or ough2

admi ni s t r at or , J os eph Scarpa ( i n hi s offi ci al and i ndi vi dual capa ci t i es ) . Pi cano a l l eged t hatdefe ndant s vi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s w hen the B or ough enac t ed and e nfor ced an o rdin an ce req u ir ing reside n ts t o p aytheir pro p ertytaxe s b ych ec k o r m o n eyo rde r, r athert han i n cas h. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed def endant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent a s to th is c la im . P la in tif f f ile d th is tim e ly ap p e a l. 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. Backg r ound In F e b ru a ryo r M a rc h 2 0 0 7 , the B o ro u g h a d o p ted a p o licyre q u irin g its re sid e n ts to paypr oper t yt axes bychec k orm oneyor der , r atherthan i n cas h. T he pol i cyw as m ot i vat ed, atl eas ti n par t , byan i nci denti n a nea rbyt ow ns hi p i n w hi ch a t ax col l ect or h ad em b ez zled ca sh p ay m en ts of taxe s. P lai n ti ff

an d o ther res iden ts of

the B o rou g h w ere not i fi ed of the new pol i cyi n w r i t i ng. N onethel es s , i n M ay2007, pl ai nt i ff vi s i t ed the B or ough’ s T ax O ffi ce, t r i ed t o payhi s t axes i n cas h, and w as r efus ed. Pl ai nt i ff su b seq u en tl yref

u sed to p ayh is t ax es b u t, at l ea st as o f th e ti m e o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s decis i on i n Jun e 20 08 , t he B oroug h h ad n ot att em pted t o en force a t ax li en ag ai nst p l a i n t i f f ’ s p r o p e r t y. P la in tif f in s titu te d th is litig a tio n a n d d e f e n d a n ts m o v e d f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T h e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted th e m o tio n . W ith re sp e c t to P ica n o ’s c laim th a t d e f e n d a n ts vi ol at ed hi s “s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r i ghtt o payhi s t axes w i t h U ni t ed St at es curr ency , ” A pp. 5, t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatthe or di nance w as perm i s s i bl e as l ong as the B or ough3

con t i nu ed to accept other form s of U . S . curr ency , such as ch ecks. T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o defe ndant s on one of the thr ee othercaus es of ac t i on a s s e r t e d i n t h e c o mp l a i n t , a n d P i c a n o v o l u n t a r i l yd i s mi s s e d th e r e ma i n i n g two . On appea l , Pi cano doe s notchal l enge the di s m i s s al of thes e thr ee c aus es of ac t i on. D i s cus s i on T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1331. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. O u r r e v ie w o f

a g ra n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is p le n a ry. G ardn er v. Stat e Farm F i r e & C as . C o. , 544 F. 3d 553, 557 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . “[W ] e as s es s the r ecor d us i ng the s ame summ aryj udgm ents t andar d t hatgui des the di s t r i ctcour t s . ” I d. T h u s, d e f

e n d a n ts m us tdemonstr at e that“ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand that[theyar e] en ti tl ed to jud g m en t as a m att er o f law . ” F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c)(2). T h e c o m p lain t ch a ra c ter ize s p lain tiff ’s c laim a s a c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n o f h is r i ghtt o s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s . O n appea l , how ever , pl ai nt i ff a ppear s t o have a b a n d o n e d th is c o n s titu tio n a l c la im in f a v o r o f a s ta tu to ry c la im b a s e d o n 3 1 U .S .C . § 5 1 0 3 . P lai n ti ff

arg u es th at th is cl aim is en fo rce ab le un d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 . P lai n ti ff ’s a rg u m e n ts h a v e n o m e rit. A s an i ni t i al m at t er , pl ai nt i ff a ppear s t o have w ai ved al l of hi s cl ai m s . Pl ai nt i ff ha s offe r ed abs ol ut el yno ar gum enton appea l r egar di ng hi s cons t i tut i onal cl ai m . W i t h r es pect t o h i s new l yassert ed st atutoryargum ent, plai nti ff h i m sel f con cedes t hat he di d n ot r ai se4

th is a rg u m e n t in th e D istric t C o u rt. E v e n a d d r e s s i n g t h e me r i t s o f p l a i n t i f f ’ s c l a i ms , h e h a s c i t e d n o a u t h o r i t y , a n d we have f ound none, fort he pr opos i t i on thatther e i s a s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r i ghtt o pay one’ s t axes i n cas h. W e have hel d that“a l egi s l at i ve ac tw i l l w i t hs t and s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s chal l enge i f the governm enti dent i fi es a l egi t i m at e s t at e i nt er es tthatthe l egi s l atur e coul d r at i onal l yconcl ude w as s erved bythe s t atut e. ” Nich o la s v . P a . S ta te U ni v. , 2 2 7 F .3 d 1 3 3 , 1 3 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c ita tio n s a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). T he or di nance her e w as j us t i fi ed bythe B or ough’ s l egi t i m at e i nt er es ti n pr ot ect i ng t ax re v e n u e s f

ro m e m b e z z lem e n t. N orcan pl ai nt i ff a s s er ta cl ai m under§ 1983 fora vi ol at i on of 31 U . S. C . § 5103. “[T ]o sust ai n a § 19 83 act i on for the v i olat i on of a st atutoryri gh t , a plai nti ff m ust dem on strat e t hat the fe deral st atute cr eat es an i nd i vidual l yenfo rceabl e ri gh ti n the cl ass of bene fi ci ar i es t o w hi ch he be l ongs . ” A . W . v. Jer s ey Ci t y Pub. Sch. , 486 F. 3d 791, 801 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . Pl ai nt i ff ha s noteven a t t empt ed t o s how that§ 5103 cr eat es s uch a r i ght ort hathe s houl d benef

i tfr om i t , and w e do notbel i eve thathe coul d m ake s uch a s how i ng. F in a lly, th e re is n o b a s is f o r c o n c lu d in g th a t d e f

e n d a n ts v io la te d 3 1 U .S .C . § 5 1 0 3 . S e c tio n 5 1 0 3 p ro v id e s th a t “U n ited S tate s c o in s a n d c u rre n c y. . . are leg a l ten d e r f o r a ll debt s , publ i c cha r ges , t axes , and dues . ” N one of the ca s es ci t ed bypl ai nt i ff s t ands fort he pr opos i t i on t hat§ 5103 r equi r es a l ocal governm ent( oranyot herent i ty ) t o acc ept5

paym enti n cas h, and no courthas s o hel d. W e w ill th e re f

o re a f f ir m th e o rd e r o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .