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 6-29-2005 

# F o s te r v . M ye rs 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 . 05-1101

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 os t e r v . M ye r s " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 945. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/945NOT 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 . 05- 1101

________________ J AM ES E. F OST ER, A ppel l ant v. THO M AS L. M YER S; DA VI D SCO TT; HOM ER F LOYD; J OSE P H AD LE R; T RE NT HAR GR OVE , E s q . ; J OAN D. GM I T T E R; M AR I E M . T OM AS S O; ROM I NGER & BAY LE Y LAW F I RM

____________________________________ 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( M . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 04- cv- 01617) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC . C onner

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

J U N E 24, 2005 Be f o r e : REN DELL, AM BRO AN D FU ENTES, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed J une 29, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C U R I A M.I n J ul y2004, J ames Fos t erfi l ed a pr o s e ci vi l r i ght s C om pl ai nt , w hi ch w as

a m e n d e d tw ice , in w h ich h e n a m e d th e law f irm o f R o m in g e r & B a y ley an d in d iv id u a ls ap p are n tl yem p loy ed b ythe P en n sy lvan ia H u m an R igh ts C o m m issi o n , the G o v ern o r’s O ffi ce of G ener al C ouns el , and the Equal E m pl oym entO ppor tuni t yC om m i s s i on, as defe ndant s . I tappea r s fr om t he Second A m ended Com pl ai nt( r efe r r ed t o as the “A m ended Com pl ai nt ”) t hatFost erbel i eves thatthe def endant s part i ci pat ed i n a cons pi r acyt o publ i s h fal s e i nform at i on abouthi m thr ough a dat abas e mai nt ai ned byt he P e n n sy lv a n ia D e p a rtm e n t o f L a b o r a n d In d u stry(“ D O L I” ) th a t is a c c e ss ib le to pr os pect i ve empl oy er s . H e bel i eves thatthe publ i cat i on of thi s i nform at i on has pr event ed hi m fr om obt ai ni ng empl oym ent . H e al l eged thatthe def endant s w er e enga ged i n t he s ame cons pi r acyas t he def endant s named i n a r el at ed ci vi l cas e, Fost erv. Pa. H um an R el at i ons C om m ’ n, C i v. A . N o. 03- 01890. H e cl ai m s thatthe def endant s “i nt er act ed and cons pi r ed i n an ef

for tt o conce al fac t s and denyi nform at i on byi m pedi ng, hi nder i ng, m i s l eadi ng, m i s i nform i ng, m i s di r ect i ng and mi s r epr es ent i ng l aw s i n or dert o confus e and delayP l ai nti ff’s cause of acti on t o redress the co urt s. ” F ost er s eeks da m ages. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed Fos t er ’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s and d is m is s e d s u a s p o n te th e A m e n d e d C o m p la in t a s f ri v o lo u s p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1915( e) ( 2) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatFost er ’ s tw o pr i orci vi l act i ons , Fost erv. Pa. H um an R el at i ons C om m ’ n, C i v. A . N o. 03- 01890 ( M . D . Pa. 2003) ( “Fos t erI ”) , and Fost erv. Pa. D ep’ tof Labor& I ndus . , C i v. A . N o. 04- 01616 ( M . D . Pa. 2004) ( “Fos t er II” ) a lleg e d th a t D O L I a n d o th e r n a m e d d e f e n d a n ts s e c re tlym a in tain a “ b lac k list”dat abas e cont ai ni ng defa m at or yi nform at i on on empl oy ees l abel ed as tr oubl emaker s by

em ploy ers . T he D i stri ctC ou rtfou nd that the A m end ed C om plai nt di d n ot averanycause o f a cti o n o r th eo ryo f li ab il ityd iffe ren t from the p ri o r civil ac ti o n s. T h e D istri ct C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e o n lyd if f e re n c e b e tw e e n th e A m e n d e d C o m p lain t an d F o ste r I, in part i cul ar , w as t hatFost erhad adde d new defe ndant s , al l of w hom w er e di s cus s ed i n t he pr i orcas e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thatFost erI w as di s m i s s ed ats um m aryj udgm ent beca us e he ha d no document aryort es t i m oni al evi dence t o s uppor thi s al l egat i ons . B as ed on t he fa ctt hatt he A m ended Com pl ai ntes s ent i al l yr ei t er at ed the uns uppor t ed cons pi r acy a lleg a tio n s in F o ste r I th a t w e re d ism iss e d a t su m m a ryju d g m e n t, th e D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t th e A m e n d e d C o m p lain t w a s w h o llyin c re d ib le a n d c lea rlyb a se les s. F o ste r tim e ly appea l ed. W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urs t andar d of r evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al under§ 1915( e) ( 2) i s pl enary . L i ke the D i s t r i ct C o u rt, w e m u st a c c e p t as tru e th e f a c tu a l alle g a tio n s in th e A m e n d e d C o m p lain t an d a ll r eas onabl e i nfer ence s t hatcan be dr aw n fr om them. N ami v. Fauver , 82 F. 3d 63, 65 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). T o t he ext entt hatt he A m ended Com pl ai ntnames the s ame defenda nt s as i n Fost er I o r n a m e s d e f

e n d a n ts in p riv ityw ith th o se n a m e d in F o ste r I, w e c o n c lu d e th a t cla im pr ecl us i on bar s Fost er ’ s cl ai m s beca us e the cl ai m s w er e ac tual l yl i t i gat ed orcoul d have been l i t i gat ed i n a pr i oract i on. See Feder at ed D ep’ tSt or es , I nc. v. M oi t i e, 452 U . S. 394, 398 ( 1981) ; C r os s r oads C ogener at i on C orp. v. O r ange & R ockl and U t i l s . , 159 F. 3d 129,1 3 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). A s f o r th e n e w lyn a m e d d e f e n d a n ts, w e h o ld th a t F o ste r h a s f a iled to s t a t e a c i v i l r i g h t s c o n s p i r a c yc l a i m. As s u mi n g th e tru t h o f F o s t e r ’ s a l l e g a t i o n s , a s we m us t , w e fi nd no fac t s fr om w hi ch w e ca n r eas onabl yi nferdi s cr i m i nat oryani m us fort he e v e n ts in q u e stio n o r o f a n a g re e m e n t am o n g th e d e f e n d a n ts to d e p riv e F o ste r o f h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . D a v is v . T o w n s h ip o f H ills id e , 1 9 0 F .3 d 1 6 7 , 1 7 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T hus , t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed the C om pl ai ntw i t h pr ej udi ce. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.