Cummings v. City of Philadelphia ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2005 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    6-30-2005
    Cummings v. Philadelphia
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 04-2974
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
    Recommended Citation
    "Cummings v. Philadelphia" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 937.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/937
    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 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    No. 04-2974
    GREGORY CUMMINGS;
    SHIRLEY BAKER
    v.
    CITY OF PHILADELPHIA;
    TED RYAN; KATHERINE SESSIONS
    Gregory Cummings,
    Appellant
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil No. 03-cv-0034)
    District Judge: Hon. Herbert J. Hutton
    Argued June 2, 2005
    BEFORE: FUENTES, GREENBERG and COWEN, Circuit Judges
    (Filed: June 30, 2005)
    Tshaka H. Lafayette, Esq. (Argued)
    Lafayette & Associates
    21 South 12 th Street
    Suite 1050
    Philadelphia, PA 19107
    Counsel for Appellant
    Elise M. Bruhl, Esq.
    City of Philadelphia
    Law Department
    1515 Arch Street
    One Parkway
    Philadelphia, PA 19102
    Counsel for Appellees
    OPINION
    COWEN, Circuit Judge.
    Gregory Cummings appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion for leave
    to file a second amended complaint and granting Defendants, Detective Ted Ryan and the
    City of Philadelphia’s, Motion for Summary Judgment. Cummings contends that the
    District Court: (1) abused its discretion by denying his motion to amend his complaint as
    he sought only to provide additional information and was not introducing a new cause of
    action; (2) erred in holding that the warrant application, as a matter of law, established
    sufficient probable cause to support the issuance of the warrant despite certain omissions;
    (3) erred in not finding liability based on the false statements contained in the criminal
    complaint which was affirmed by Detective Ryan and submitted as part of the application
    for the arrest warrant. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm.
    As we write solely for the parties, we only provide a brief recitation of the facts.
    2
    Gregory Cummings was arrested on January 2, 2001, pursuant to two warrants
    obtained by Detective Ryan. The first warrant, No. 254514, arose out of complaint made
    by Katherine Sessions, his ex-girlfriend, alleging that Cummings broke her front window
    and left a threatening note. The note concerned their nine year old son over whom there
    was an ongoing custody dispute.
    The second warrant, No. 254785, arose out of a complaint made by Tiffany
    Robinson, Sessions’ daughter. She explained that Shirley Baker and Gregory Cummings
    approached her in a car. After screaming out the window “[l]isten you little bitch, tell
    your mother to give me my grandson back, or I’ll kill her,” Baker fired a gun at her three
    times. (App. at 51a.) The day after the alleged incident, Detective Ryan interviewed the
    crossing guard who was working at the time of, and in the same vicinity as, the shooting.
    The crossing guard did not recall anything out of the ordinary occurring the previous day.
    Further, Detective Ryan did not find the gun shells at the scene of the alleged incident.
    Although Detective Ryan submitted an affidavit of probable cause in support of the
    issuance of the arrest warrant, he did not include these mitigating factors.
    Following his arrest, Cummings remained in pretrial incarceration for 17 months
    and was ultimately acquitted of all charges.
    Cummings filed a complaint on January 2, 2003 against the City of Philadelphia,
    Detective Ryan (together, the “Defendants”) and Katherine Sessions.1 A few months
    1
    As the Defendants explain, the record does not indicate that Sessions was served
    with process or entered an appearance. Accordingly, she does not appear to be a party to
    3
    later, the complaint was amended to add Shirley Baker as a party plaintiff (together with
    Cummings, the “Plaintiffs”). The complaint included claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
    1983 for alleged Fourth Amendment rights violations. The District Court denied
    Plaintiffs’ motion to file a second amended complaint and granted Defendants’ motion
    for summary judgment. The District Court subsequently denied Plaintiffs’ motion for
    reconsideration and Cummings brought this appeal.
    We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s order granting defendant’s
    motion for summary judgment. See Morton Int’l, Inc. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 
    343 F.3d 669
    , 679 (3d Cir. 2003). We apply the same test required of the district court and view all
    of the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
    Cummings contends that Detective Ryan omitted the following facts from the
    affidavit of probable cause with reckless disregard for the truth: (1) Karo Sharpe, the
    school crossing guard on duty at the time of the shooting, reported to Detective Ryan the
    day after the shooting that she did not observe anything unusual the previous day; (2)
    Detective Ryan searched the alleged crime scene and did not locate the bullet casings; and
    (3) Detective Ryan never questioned Cummings about his whereabouts at the time of the
    alleged incident.
    Generally, to prevail under a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must establish that the
    defendant (1) acted under color of state law and (2) deprived the plaintiff of a right
    the action and does not prevent judgment from being final. See D.R. by L.R. v. Middle
    Bucks Vocational School, 
    972 F.2d 1364
    , 1366 (3d Cir. 1992).
    4
    protected by the Constitution. See Groman v. Township of Manalapan, 
    47 F.3d 628
    , 633
    (3d Cir. 1995). To succeed on a § 1983 claim for a Fourth Amendment violation due to a
    false arrest, plaintiff must prove that (1) the officer “knowingly and deliberately, or with a
    reckless disregard for the truth, made false statements or omissions that create a falsehood
    in applying for a warrant;” and (2) that “such statements or omissions are material, or
    necessary, to the finding of probable cause.” Wilson v. Russo, 
    212 F.3d 781
    , 786-87 (3d
    Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also, Franks v. Delaware,
    
    438 U.S. 154
    (1978). Omissions are made with reckless disregard “if an officer
    withholds a fact in his ken that any reasonable person would have known that this was the
    kind of thing the judge would wish to know.” 
    Wilson, 212 F.3d at 788
    (internal quotation
    marks and citations omitted).
    The District Court concluded that although Detective Ryan had no responsibility to
    report that he never questioned Cummings on his whereabouts, he did act “with reckless
    disregard of the truth by omitting exculpatory facts about the crossing-guard and the
    bullet casings from the affidavit of probable cause.” (App. at 16A.) However, the Court
    found that the omissions were not “material or necessary, to the finding of probable
    cause,” because even after inserting the omitted facts the warrant establishes probable
    cause. (App. at 17-18.) Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary
    judgment.
    5
    Cummings asserts that the District Court erred by holding that the omissions
    contained in the affidavit of probable cause were not materially sufficient to undermine a
    finding of probable cause. He further argues that the District Court erred “by interpreting
    the fact that Baker was accused of shooting at Robinson in a manner unfavorable to
    Cummings.” (Appellant’s Br. at 27.) We disagree.
    The District Court properly concluded that the omissions were made with reckless
    disregard for the truth. We also agree with the District Court’s conclusion that the
    omissions were not material. The test for determining materiality is to insert the facts
    recklessly omitted and determine whether the “corrected” warrant establishes probable
    cause. 
    Wilson, 212 F.3d at 789
    (citing Sherwood v. Mulvihill, 
    113 F.3d 396
    , 399 (3d Cir.
    1997)). In assessing whether probable cause exists, the inculpatory evidence should be
    weighed against the exculpatory evidence to determine whether a reasonable person
    would believe an offense has been committed by the suspect. Here, as the District Court
    explained:
    [T]he strongest inculpatory evidence is the positive identification of
    Plaintiffs by the victim Tiffany Robinson. There is also evidence of
    the custody dispute and the protection from abuse order issued
    against Cummings. The exculpatory facts recklessly omitted by
    Detective Ryan concern the lack of evidence from the crime scene,
    including the crossing guard’s statement and the lack of bullet shells.
    (App. at 17A.) These exculpatory facts are insufficient to vitiate the probable cause
    established by the inculpatory evidence.
    6
    We find Cummings’ alternative argument meritless—the District Court did not
    interpret the fact that Baker was accused of shooting at Robinson in a manner unfavorable
    to him. Rather, there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that
    Cummings was involved in the alleged shooting offense. Accordingly, the District Court
    did not err in granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
    Because we affirm the District Court’s conclusion that there was probable cause to
    support the issuance of the arrest warrant involving the shooting incident as a matter of
    law, Cummings’ request to amend his complaint to add additional facts involving the
    other arrest warrant is dismissed as moot. Cummings cannot maintain a cause of action
    for unlawful arrest under the warrant involving the broken window because he was
    lawfully arrested under the warrant involving the shooting incident.
    Similarly, because we affirm the District Court’s finding that the affidavit provided
    sufficient probable cause to support the issuance of the warrant, we dismiss as moot
    Cummings’ argument regarding liability based on the false statements contained in the
    criminal complaint.2 So long as the affidavit of probable cause provided adequate support
    for the warrant, any defects in the criminal complaint would not vitiate that finding of
    probable cause.
    2
    We refrain from determining whether the District Court erred in finding that
    “Detective Ryan’s potential liability lies only in the Affidavit of Probable Cause, the
    document he prepared,” and not in the Criminal Complaint prepared by the District
    Attorney’s Office. (App. at 14A, n.8.)
    7
    For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court granting
    Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiffs’ motion to file a
    second amended complaint.
    8