2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-2-2012

Paul Surine v. Brian Edgcomb

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-1473

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

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 2012 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

"Paul Surine v. Brian Edgcomb" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 1039.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/1039
GLD-172 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 12-1473

____________

PAUL SURINE,

Appellant

v.

BRIAN W. EDGCOMB, District Justice; STATE

POLICE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM;

NICHOLAS MADIGAN, PA State Trooper; MICHAEL

CLEGG, PA State Trooper; CHRISTOPHER WHEELER,

PA State Trooper; SCOTT HENRY, PA State Trooper; 

TOM YOUNG, PA State Trooper; GEORGE W. WHEELER,

Assistant District Attorney; MIKE SNYDER, Assistant 

Police Chief; UNKNOWN CLARK; UNKNOWN 

FRITZ; UNKNOWN BEDELL; UNKNOWN DIAZ; 

AGT O'DELL; AGT O'MALLEY; ATTORNEY 

G. SCOTT GARDNER

__________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 4-08-cv-01921)

District Judge: Christopher C. Conner

__________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

April 26, 2012

Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 2, 2012)

____________

OPINION

____________
2

PER CURIAM

Appellant Paul Surine of Elkland, Pennsylvania filed a pro se complaint in the 

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against numerous 

defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which he then amended. Surine alleged various 

violations of his constitutional civil rights in connection with the search of his mobile 

home and his arrest on drug charges on or about February 1, 2007, and he demanded 

money damages. We note that, on May 30, 2008, Surine pleaded guilty to conspiracy to 

distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, in connection with these drug charges. 

He was sentenced in the Middle District to a term of imprisonment of 360 months. We 

affirmed in United States v. Surine, 375 F. App’x 164, 171 (3d Cir. 2010) (sentence 

reasonable where conspiracy lasted for at least twenty-one months, Surine was the leader, 

at least 100 to 200 individuals purchased crack cocaine during that time, conspiracy 

included trading of firearms for crack, and Surine was responsible for the drug addiction 

of several of his own children).

The defendants moved individually and in groups to dismiss Surine’s amended 

complaint, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6), or for summary judgment, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(a). 

The District Court issued a number of orders either dismissing the amended complaint or 

awarding summary judgment to the defendants, the last of which was entered on January 

19, 2012.

Surine appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our Clerk granted 

Surine leave to appeal in forma pauperis and advised him that the appeal was subject to 

summary dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or summary affirmance under Third 
3

Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. He was invited to submit argument in writing, but he has 

not done so.

We will dismiss the appeal as frivolous. An appellant may prosecute his appeal 

without prepayment of the fees, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), but the in forma pauperis statute 

provides that the Court shall dismiss the appeal at any time if the Court determines that it 

is frivolous, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An appeal is frivolous when it lacks an 

arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A 

motion to dismiss should be granted if the plaintiff is unable to plead “enough facts to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine ssue of 

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex 

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).

Early in the litigation, the District Court properly dismissed the amended 

complaint as to defendant G. Scott Gardner, Surine’s attorney, because Gardner, in 

performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a criminal defendant, did not act 

under color of state law, Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). Defendant

Brian W. Edgcomb, a Magisterial District Judge in Tioga County, properly was 

dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity, because Surine did not 

show that Judge Edgcomb, in issuing the search warrant, acted in “the clear absence of all 

jurisdiction,” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 357 (1978). Defendant George 

Wheeler, an Assistant District Attorney, properly was dismissed because he is absolutely 

immunized from a suit for damages in his capacity as a prosecutor, Imbler v. Pachtman, 
4

424 U.S. 409, 422 (1976). Summary judgment for Tom Young, the Chief of the 

Wellsboro Police Department, was proper because Chief Young had no personal 

involvement in the arrest, prosecution, or execution of the search warrant which gave rise 

to Surine’s complaint. Liability under section 1983 cannot be imposed absent personal 

involvement in the alleged actions, see Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 375-77 (1976). 

With respect to the remaining claims and defendants, the District Court concluded 

that the undisputed material facts established that defendant Pennsylvania State Trooper 

Nicholas Madigan learned through confidential informants that Surine was selling 

cocaine from his trailer in Tioga County. Trooper Madigan applied for and received a 

search warrant from Judge Edgcomb, and the Pennsylvania State Police Emergency 

Response Team (“SERT”) then secured the area. After the area was secured, numerous 

state and federal law enforcement officers conducted a valid search of Surine’s property 

and properly seized hundreds of items. The District Court concluded that there was no 

need for a trial on any of Surine’s claims of constitutional violations and that the 

defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.1 

We have carefully reviewed the record and the record facts concerning the search 

and seizure, and the prosecution of Surine, ultimately by federal authorities, on the drug 

charges. We agree with the District Court that summary judgment in favor of Trooper 

Madigan on the claimed Fourth Amendment violations was proper because Surine 

proffered no evidence that Trooper Madigan knowingly or with a reckless disregard for 

 

1 Out of an abundance of caution, the District Court declined to hold that any of Surine’s 

claims were barred by Heck’s favorable termination rule, see Heck v. Humphrey, 512 

U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
5

the truth made false statements or made material omissions in the affidavit of probable 

cause, see generally Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978). Probable cause 

exists to support the issuance of a search warrant if, based on a totality of the 

circumstances, “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be 

found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). Trooper 

Madigan’s detailed affidavit describing numerous undisputed controlled buys, the 

independent testing of the drugs, and his own observations easily established probable 

cause for a search of Surine’s mobile home as a matter of law. Moreover, the warrant 

described with particularity the items to be searched and seized, and the undisputed 

material facts show that the search was tailored to the probable cause established in 

Trooper Madigan’s affidavit. Trooper Madigan thus was entitled to judgment as a matter 

of law, and it necessarily follows that all of the named state and federal agents (Michael 

Clegg, Christopher Wheeler, Scott Henry, Troopers Bedell, Clark, Fritz, and Diaz, 

policeman Mike Snyder, and federal agents Dennis O’Dell and Timothy O’Malley), who 

merely executed the warrant are similarly entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Surine’s allegations of the use excessive force in connection with his arrest, the 

failure to “knock and announce,” and false arrest and imprisonment, are directed only at 

the State Police Emergency Response Team, which initially secured the area.

2

 The 

defendant state Troopers and federal agents who executed the properly issued search 

 

2

In his Answers to the Trooper defendants’ interrogatories, which Surine filed of record, 

he stated that he was on his knees when someone from SERT kicked him in the back. He 

was hit in the head and elbow, and momentarily knocked out. SERT also smashed his 

windows. In addition, Surine submitted a copy of a medical bill from an emergency 

room for in excess of $1,000 for treatment of his injuries. 
6

warrant indisputably were not members of SERT. Moreover, SERT itself is not a 

“person” for purposes of section 1983 and thus may not be sued, Will v. Michigan Dep’t 

of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). The District Court concluded, and we agree, that 

Surine had ample time during the three-year pendency of his case to take discovery to 

learn the identities of the members of SERT, who allegedly harmed him, and thereby cure 

the deficiency in his complaint. He did not undertake that effort and thus his excessive 

force, false arrest and imprisonment, and failure to “knock and announce” claims were 

properly dismissed.3

Last, defamation is not actionable under section 1983 where stigma to reputation 

is all that is alleged, see Sturm v. Clark, 835 F.2d 1009, 1012 (1987) (“Absent the 

alteration or extinguishment of a more tangible interest, injury to reputation is actionable 

only under state defamation law.”), and Surine’s malicious prosecution claim also fails 

because it requires a showing that the criminal proceeding ended in his favor, see

McKenna v. City of Philadelphia, 582 F.3d 447, 461 (3d Cir. 2009). Surine’s criminal 

proceeding did not end in his favor. The District Court also correctly disposed of 

 

3 We note for Surine’s benefit that prevailing on these claims was unlikely in any event 

even if he had been able to identify the SERT members. Law enforcement officers may 

dispense with the Fourth Amendment’s “knock and announce” rule where they have a 

reasonable suspicion that an announcement might place them in danger or lead to the 

destruction of evidence. See Kornegay v. Cottingham, 120 F.3d 392, 397 (3d Cir. 1997). 

Moreover, the use of force against an individual may be objectively reasonable and thus 

not offend the Constitution where the individual poses an immediate threat to the safety 

of the officers or others. See Kopec v. Tate, 361 F.3d 772, 776-77 (3d Cir. 2004). 

During Surine’s sentencing hearing, “the testimony of several witnesses established that 

there were firearms in Surine’s mobile home at all times, that Surine used firearms to 

protect himself during drug transactions, that Surine on one occasion pointed a firearm at 

an individual who was delivering drugs, that Surine occasionally fired a gun to scare off 

purchasers, and that Surine traded firearms for crack.” Surine, 375 Fed. Appx. at 170.
7

Surine’s remaining claims, which do not require discussion here, and properly declined to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Surine’s state law claims.

For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the appeal as frivolous pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).