2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-27-2005

Favors v. USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 04-1069

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Favors v. USA" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 961.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/961
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 _______________

Nos. 04-1069 and 04-3227

_________________

 SHARLETTA FAVORS,

 Appellant

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED STATES

MARSHALS; BENINGO G. REYNA, UNITED STATES MARSHSAL DIRECTOR; SMITH,

UNITED STATES MARSHAL DEPUTY; JANE DOE, UNITED STATES MARSHAL

____________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 02-cv-09496)

District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell

_______________________________________

Argued: June 8, 2005

Before: FUENTES, VAN ANTWERPEN and BECKER, Circuit Judges

(Filed: June 27, 2005)

ALAN E. DENENBERG (Argued)

Abramson & Denenberg

1200 Walnut Street

Sixth Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19107
2

Attorney for Appellant

JOSHUA WALDMAN (Argued)

United States Department of Justice

Civil Division, Appellate Staff

601 D Street, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Attorney for Appellees

_______________________

OPINION

_______________________

BECKER, Circuit Judge.

These appeals by Sharletta Favors stem from a mistaken arrest. Deputy U.S.

Marshal Wright Smith, acting pursuant to a warrant for a Charlotte Robinson, arrested

Favors in her home on April 5, 2001. She then filed a Bivens suit against numerous

defendants claiming multiple constitutional and other violations, but Judge Dalzell

granted summary judgment for defendants on all counts. This is an unfortunate case, as

any mistaken arrest would be, and we are sympathetic to Ms. Favors. However, Judge

Dalzell’s opinion, in which he explains his reasons for granting summary judgment for

the defendants (primarily on grounds of qualified immunity) is compelling and sound,

hence we affirm.

The facts, as set forth in Marshal Smith’s affidavit, may be briefly summarized as

follows: On August 29, 2000, an arrest warrant was issued by the Court of Commons

Pleas in Lycoming County for Charlotte Robinson, a fugitive who had violated the terms
3

of her parole. Deputy Marshal Smith was detailed to locate Robinson. From the report

he was provided, Smith learned that Robinson had previously lived with another fugitive

named Sylvia Melton, and that the two may have moved to Philadelphia together. With

the help of Officer Gregory Laszlo of the Philadelphia Police Department, Smith

discovered that Melton was receiving public assistance and had listed her address as 4429

Walnut St. On April 4, 2001, Smith went to 4429 Walnut and met with the building

manager, Jim Steuber. Smith showed Steuber pictures of Robinson, and Steuber told him

that someone resembling the woman in the pictures lived in Apt. 3R and had a name

similar to “Charlotte Robinson.” Favors was twenty-eight at the time of the arrest, 5'6"

and 175 lbs.; Robinson was thirty-one, 5'8" and 165 lbs.

The following morning at around 7:45, Smith, joined by two Philadelphia police

officers and two state troopers, attempted to serve the warrant on Robinson. In fact, the

woman living in Apt. 3R was not Robinson, but Sharletta Favors. When Favors and her

boyfriend, who also lived in the apartment, refused to permit Smith to enter, Smith

opened the door with a key obtained from Steuber. Smith sought to arrest Favors, who

denied that she was Charlotte Robinson. She produced a driver’s license and Social

Security card listing her name as Sharletta Favors. Smith nonetheless arrested her and

took her into custody. According to Favors, Smith grabbed and pulled her during the

arrest, causing her to fall into a chair. She was released several hours later, when her

fingerprints showed that she was not, in fact, Robinson.
 The District Court rejected Favors’ excessive force claim, finding that she had 1

submitted no evidence in support of it. This conclusion is correct, as there was nothing in

the record before Judge Dalzell to support Favors’ claim that she was grabbed or pushed. 

The Court also dismissed the remaining defendants for various reasons, none relevant to

this appeal.

 See Berg v. County of Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261, 266 (3d Cir. 2000) (per curiam); 2

Rogers v. Powell, 120 F.3d 446, 453-54 (3d Cir. 1997).

4

The case essentially turns on the uncontradicted affidavit of Smith, as Favors did

not submit an affidavit in response to the summary judgment motion. Judge Dalzell

concluded that Smith acted reasonably. More specifically, the Judge reasoned that if

Smith’s affidavit is believed, then he had sufficient justification to arrest Smith, based on

(1) his belief that Robinson lived with Melton; (2) the records search showing that

Melton resided at 4429 Walnut; and (3) Steuber’s identification of Favors from the

pictures of Robinson. Our review is plenary, and we agree. 1

Favors argues that a mistaken arrest pursuant to a valid warrant can never be

reasonable, but the cases she cites for that proposition do not so hold. Additionally 2

Favors argues that even if Smith’s affidavit is accepted as true, several jury questions

remain. Again, we disagree. First, while we do not gainsay that, as a general

proposition, reasonable people can disagree as to resemblance, there was no counter to

Smith’s affidavit stating that Favors resembles Robinson. And the arguments of

inadmissable hearsay fail because the challenged evidence that Melton received public

assistance at 4429 Walnut and the statement from Steuber that someone resembling

Robinson lived in Apartment 3R were not offered for their truth.
 Favors has made two procedural arguments which are lacking in merit. She made a 3

Rule 56(f) motion requesting additional discovery but only after the District Court

granted summary judgment. Based on the plain language of Rule 56(f), Favors’ motion

was correctly denied in the absence of an affidavit. She also challenges Judge Dalzell’s

decision to deny her Rule 60(b) motion. We review this ruling for abuse of discretion and

find none.

5

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.3