Opinion ID: 2648668
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Right of Access to the Court

Text: Washington also argues that Defendants violated his due process right of access to the court. We have held that “[c]over-ups that prevent a person who has been wronged from vindicating his rights violate the right of access to the courts protected by the substantive due process clause.” Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497, 511 (3d Cir. 3 The Supreme Court did not address the procedural due process implications of a prosecution absent probable cause in Albright because the petitioner did not raise a procedural due process claim. Albright, 510 U.S. at 271. Our cases interpreting Albright have suggested that § 1983 malicious prosecution claims may be predicated on constitutional provisions other than the Fourth Amendment, such as procedural due process. See Torres v. McLaughlin, 163 F.3d 169, 173 (3d Cir. 1998) (“[A] section 1983 malicious prosecution claim may . . . include police conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, the procedural due process clause or other explicit text of the Constitution.”). 8 2003). We explained in Marasco, however, that only “conduct that either prevents a plaintiff from filing suit or renders the plaintiff’s access to the court ineffective or meaningless constitutes a constitutional violation.” Id. Here, Washington has not alleged any evidence of a police cover-up that prevented him from vindicating his rights. In contrast, Washington was able to challenge his seizure in a pretrial suppression hearing as well as on appeal, where he was ultimately successful. We therefore affirm the District Court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings as to Washington’s claim that he was denied his right of access to the courts.