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 6-27-2005 

# F a vors 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 . 04-1069

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 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 " F a vor s v . U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 961. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/961NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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 os . 04- 1069 and 04- 3227

_________________ SH A RL ETT A FA V O RS,

Appellant v. UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTI CE; UNI TED STATES MARSHAL S; BENI

NGO G. REYNA, UNITED STATES MARSHSALDIRECTOR; S MI TH, UNI TED STATES MARSHALDEPUTY; JANE DO E, UNITED STATES MARSHAL

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 02- cv- 09496) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S tew a rt D a lze ll

_______________________________________

A r gued: J une 8, 2005 B e f o re : F U E N T E S , V A N A N T W E R P E N a n d B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: J une 27, 2005) A L A N E . D E N E N B E R G ( A r gued) A b ram so n & D en en b erg 1200 W al nutSt r eet Si xt h Fl oor Phi l adel phi a, PA 191072

A t t or ney f

orAppel l ant J O SH U A W A L D M A N ( A r gued) U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce C i vi l D i vi s i on, A ppel l at e St aff 6 0 1 D S t r e e t , NW W as hi ngt on, D C 20530 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ees

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudge . The s e a pp e a l s bySha r l e t t a Fa vo r s s t e m fr om a mi s t a ke n a r r e s t . D e pu t yU . S. M ar s hal W r i ghtSm i t h, act i ng pur s uantt o a w arr antfora C har l ot t e R obi ns on, arr es t ed Favor s i n herhom e on A pr i l 5, 2001. She t hen fi l ed a B i vens s ui tagai ns tnum er ous d e f e n d a n ts c laim in g m u lti p le c o n stitu tio n a l an d o th e r v io latio n s, b u t Ju d g e D a lze ll gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entfordefe ndant s on al l count s . T hi s i s an unfortunat e ca s e, as anym i s t aken a r r es tw oul d be, and w e ar e s ym pathet i c t o M s . Favor s . H ow ever , J udge D al zel l ’ s opi ni on, i n w hi ch he e xpl ai ns hi s r eas ons forgr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entfor t he def endant s ( pr i m ar i l yon gr ounds of qual i fi ed i m m uni t y ) i s compel l i ng and s ound, h e n c e we a f

f i r m. T he fa ct s , as s etfor t h i n M ar s hal Sm i t h’ s aff i davi t , m aybe br i efl ys um m ar i zed a s fol l ow s : O n A ugus t29, 2000, an arr es tw arr antw as i s s ued bythe C our tof C om m ons P l e a s i n Ly c o mi n g Co u n t yf o rCh a r l o t t e Ro b i n s o n , a f u g i t i v e wh o h a d v i o l a t e d th e t e r ms3

o f h er p aro le. D ep u tyM arsh al S m ith w as d etail ed to loc ate R o b inso n . F rom the re p o rt he w as pr ovi ded, Sm i t h l earned thatR obi ns on had pr evi ous l yl i ved w i t h anotherfugi t i ve n a m e d S y lv ia M e lto n , an d th a t th e tw o m a yh a v e m o v e d to P h ilad e lp h ia to g e th e r. W ith th e h e lp o f

O f f ice r G re g o ryL a sz lo o f

th e P h ilad e lp h ia P o lice D e p a rtm e n t, S m ith di s cover ed thatM el t on w as r ece i vi ng publ i c as s i s t ance and had l i s t ed heraddr es s as 4429 W al nutSt . O n A pr i l 4, 2001, Sm i t h w entt o 4429 W al nutand metw i t h t he bui l di ng m a n a g e r, Jim S teu b e r. S m ith sh o w e d S teu b e r p ictu re s o f R o b in so n , an d S teu b e r to ld h im t h a ts o me o n e r e s e mb l i n g t h e wo ma n i n th e p i c tu r e s l i v e d i n Ap t . 3 R a n d h a d a n a me s i m i l art o “C har l ot t e R obi ns on. ” Favor s w as tw enty - ei ghtatthe t i m e of the arr es t , 5' 6" and 17 5 lbs. ; R ob i nson w as thirt y -one, 5' 8" and 16 5 lbs. T he fol l ow i ng m or ni ng atar ound 7: 45, Sm i t h, j oi ned bytw o Phi l adel phi a pol i ce offi cer s and tw o s t at e tr ooper s , at t empt ed t o s erve the w arr anton R obi ns on. I n fac t , t he w om an l i vi ng i n A pt . 3R w as notR obi ns on, butShar l ett a Favor s . W hen Favor s and her b o y f rie n d , w h o a lso liv e d in th e a p a rtm e n t, ref u se d to p e rm it S m ith to e n ter , S m ith opened the doorw i t h a keyobt ai ned fr om St euber . Sm i t h s oughtt o arr es tFavor s , w ho deni ed thats he w as C har l ot t e R obi ns on. She pr oduced a dr i ver ’ s l i cens e and Soci al Secur i t ycar d l i s t i ng hername as Shar l et t a Favor s . Sm i t h nonethel es s arr es t ed herand t ook heri nt o cus t ody . A ccor di ng t o Favor s , Sm i t h gr abbed a nd pul l ed herdur i ng the arr es t , caus i ng hert o fal l i nt o a cha i r . She w as r el eas ed s ever al hour s l at er , w hen her fi ngerpr i nt s s how ed thats he w as not , i n fac t , R obi ns on.T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed Favor s ’ exce s s i ve for ce c l ai m , fi ndi ng thats he had 1 su b m itt e d n o e v id e n c e in su p p o rt o f it. T h is c o n c lu sio n is c o rre c t, as th e re w a s n o th in g in th e re c o rd b e f

o re J u d g e D a lz e ll to s u p p o rt F a v o rs ’ c la im th a t s h e w a s g ra b b e d o r p u s h e d . T h e C o u rt a lso d ism iss e d th e re m a in in g d e f e n d a n ts f o r v a rio u s re a so n s, n o n e re lev a n t to th is a p p e a l. See Ber g v. C ount

y of A l l egheny , 2 1 9 F . 3 d 2 6 1 , 2 6 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (pe r cu ri am ); 2 R o g e rs v . P o w e ll , 1 2 0 F . 3 d 4 4 6 , 4 5 3 -54 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). 4 T h e c a se e ss e n tiallytu rn s o n th e u n c o n tra d icte d a f f id a v it o f S m ith , as F a v o rs d id n o t su b m it an a f

f id a v it i n re sp o n se to th e su m m a ryju d g m e n t m o tio n . Ju d g e D a lze ll c o n c lu d e d th a t S m ith a c ted re a so n a b ly . M o re sp e c if ica lly , the Ju d g e re a so n e d th a t if Sm i t h’ s aff

i davi ti s bel i eved, t hen he ha d s uffi ci entj us t i fi cat i on t o arr es tSm i t h, bas ed on ( 1) hi s bel i ef thatR obi ns on l i ved w i t h M el t on; ( 2) the r ecor ds s ear ch s how i ng that M el t on r es i ded at4429 W al nut ; and ( 3) St euber ’ s i dent i fi cat i on of Favor s fr om the pi ctur es of R obi ns on. O urr evi ew i s pl enary , and w e agr ee. 1 Favor s ar gues t hata mi s t aken a r r es tpur s uantt o a val i d w arr antcan ne verbe re a so n a b le, b u t th e c a se s s h e c ites f o r th a t p ro p o sitio n d o n o t so h o ld . A d d iti o n a lly 2 Favor s ar gues t hateven i f Sm i t h’ s aff i davi ti s acc ept ed as true, s ever al j uryques t i ons r emai n. A gai n, w e di s agr ee. Fi r s t , w hi l e w e do notgai ns aythat , as a gene r al p ro p o sitio n , rea so n a b le p e o p le c a n d isa g re e a s to re se m b lan c e , the re w a s n o c o u n ter to Sm i t h’ s aff

i davi ts t at i ng t hatFavor s r es embl es R obi ns on. A nd the ar gum ent s of in a d m iss a b le h e a rsa yf

a il b e c a u se th e c h a llen g e d e v id e n c e th a t M e lto n re c e iv e d p u b lic as s i s t ance at4429 W al nutand the s t at ementfr om St euberthats om eone r es embl i ng R obi ns on l i ved i n A par t m ent3R w er e notoffe r ed forthei rtruth.Favor s has m ade tw o pr ocedur al ar gum ent s w hi ch ar e l acki ng i n m er i t . She m ade a 3 R u le 56 (f) m o ti o n req u esti n g ad d it ion al disco v eryb u t on lyaf ter th e D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm ent . B as ed on the pl ai n l anguage of R ul e 56( f) , Favor s ’ m ot i on w as c o rrectl yd en ied in the a b sen ce o f a n af fid av it . S h e a lso c h all en g es Ju d g e D alze ll ’s deci s i on t o denyherR ul e 60( b) m ot i on. W e r evi ew thi s rul i ng forabus e of di s cr et i on and fi nd none. 5 T he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed. 3