Court Opinion

ID: 9954588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 17:01:46.693769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:57.987397
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 23-2821
                                       __________

                                   MATTHEW JONES,
                                             Appellant

                                             v.

                            OFFICER WILLIAM THOMAS
                       ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                                for the District of Delaware
                         (D.C. Civil Action No. 1-19-cv-00896)
                     District Judge: Honorable Richard G. Andrews
                      ____________________________________

                   Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
                                  March 20, 2024
              Before: JORDAN, PHIPPS, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

                             (Opinion filed: March 26, 2024)
                                     ___________

                                        OPINION *
                                       ___________

PER CURIAM

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
         Matthew Jones brought this civil rights action in the District Court claiming, inter

alia, that the defendant, Officer William Thomas of the Greenwood Police Department,

violated his Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully entering his home and seizing him.

Specifically, Jones alleged that Officer Thomas, along with other officers and a crisis

intervention professional, unlawfully entered his home, removed him, and transported

him to a medical facility for psychiatric evaluation. 1 The District Court entered judgment

for Officer Thomas on cross-motions for summary judgment, and Jones appealed. 2

         Jones does not, however, raise any issues for our review. An appellant’s informal

brief must include, among other things, a statement of the issues raised on appeal and

argument in support of those issues. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a). “It is well settled that if an

appellant fails to comply with these requirements on a particular issue, [he] normally has

abandoned . . . that issue on appeal and it need not be addressed by the court of appeals.”

Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir. 1993). Jones has not complied with these

requirements. Therefore, he has forfeited any issue he might raise. See id.; see also Mala

v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013) (noting that pro se litigants

“must abide by the same rules that apply to all other litigants”).

1
 Earlier that day, Officer Thomas responded to a complaint that Jones had been on the
property of a local elementary school after hours and was taking photographs through the
building’s windows. Later that evening, Jones placed two alarming posts on his social
media account and tagged the Greenwood Police Department in one of them.
2
    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
                                              2
       We observe that, based on our independent review of the record, we see no error.

In particular, the District Court correctly concluded that Officer Thomas was entitled to

judgment as a matter of law on Jones’s Fourth Amendment claim because exigent

circumstances justified the warrantless entry and seizure. See Brigham City, Utah, v.

Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006) (“[L]aw enforcement officers may enter a home without

a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant

from imminent injury.”); see, e.g., City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 575 U.S.

600, 612 (2015) (holding that police did not violate Fourth Amendment when, having

been advised that appellant was acting erratically and had threatened to kill her social

worker, they knocked on appellant’s door, announced that they were police officers,

informed her that they wanted to help her, and opened the door).

       Accordingly, we will affirm.

                                             3