Opinion ID: 3012189
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims against Defendant Officers.

Text: Ms. Pulice appeals the District Court’s decision to grant summary judgment on the following claims brought against the defendant Officers: Excessive force claims brought under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments; retaliation claims for exercise of her rights under the First Amendment; and false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims. As explained below, we will affirm the District Court’s decision to grant summary judgment on all of these claims.
We agree with the District Court that the defendant Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Ms. Pulice’s claim that they violated the Fourth Amendment by using excessive force during her arrest. The Supreme Court has made clear that courts addressing qualified immunity for an excessive force claim must resolve the following two questions: First, when the facts are taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, do they show that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right? Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). Second, is the right clearly established insofar as a reasonable official would understand that his actions are violating that right? Id. at 202. According to the undisputed facts of this case, as Nunziato Pulice was being arrested, Maria Pulice attempted to take the gun from Officer Enciso’s holster. The officers responded by subduing and handcuffing her. Ms. Pulice claims that she was thrown face down on the ground, and beaten with a hard object. Almost all of this altercation was recorded on videotape. Medical reports show only a bruise on her back and leg and an abrasion on her left hand. In applying the Saucier test to these facts, the District Court found that it was reasonable for the officers to conclude that they were acting with an appropriate amount of force when they subdued Ms. Pulice as they did. The Supreme Court has noted that not every push or shove violates the Fourth Amendment and that the right to use a certain degree of force must be analyzed in light of the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether [the suspect] is actively resisting arrest. Graham, 490 U.S. at 96. In this case the bulk of the facts and circumstances surrounding Ms. Pulice’s arrest have been recorded on videotape. In light of the videotape and the facts, we agree with the District Court that the officers’ actions in subduing Ms. Pulice after she attempted to take Officer Enciso’s gun did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Under the circumstances, the officers were justified in reacting as they did to Ms. Pulice’s actions and no unreasonable force was employed. See Saucier, 121 U.S. at 2159-60.
We also agree with the District Court that the facts underlying Ms. Pulice’s retaliation claim fail to establish a violation of her First Amendment rights. A First Amendment retaliation claim requires a plaintiff to prove three things: first, that she engaged in protected activity; second, that the government responded with retaliation; third, that this protected activity was the cause of the government’s retaliation. Anderson v. Davila, 125 F.3d 148, 161 (3d Cir. 1997). Ms. Pulice claims that she was arrested in retaliation for standing on her property and pronouncing her views that the Gas Company was not entitled to enter. She has failed, however, to provide a factual basis for her retaliation claim. She was not arrested for expressing her views, but because she and her husband acted unlawfully when they physically obstructed the Gas Company’s right of way. Thus, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment for this claim. 3. False arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims. Under 1983, false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims require a showing that the arrest, physical restraint, or prosecution was initiated without probable cause. We agree with the District Court that Ms. Pulice failed to proffer facts showing a lack of probable cause for her arrest, physical custody, and prosecution: There is no dispute that she obstructed Peoples’ access to a valid right of way and that such obstruction is a misdemeanor under Pennsylvania law. See 18 Pa. C.S. 5507. We will affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment on these claims.