Woodlen v. Jimenez , 173 F. App'x 168 ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-28-2006
Woodlen v. Jimenez
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3143
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Woodlen v. Jimenez" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1376.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1376
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 2006 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
NO: 05-3143
_______________
EARL WOODLEN, JR.,
Appellant
vs.
PHW S. JIMENEZ; SGT. P. BURKE , COUNTS 122
_______________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civ. No. 01-cv-00225)
District Judge: Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)March 21, 2006
Before: FISHER, ALDISERT AND WEIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: March 28, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_____
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Earl Woodlen appeals from the District Court’s order granting
the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the District Court’s order.
I.
The parties are familiar with the facts of this case, thus, we only briefly
recite them here. In 1999, Officers Jimenez and Counts observed a late model vehicle
with dealer tags. They claim that in their experience, such vehicles are often stolen. The
Officers pulled behind the vehicle and observed Woodlen leave his car, pick something
up from the street, and then return to his still running vehicle. Finding this suspicious, the
Officers followed Woodlen through a parking lot until he finally parked on the street.
The Officers aver that they then activated their lights, at which point
Woodlen “exited his vehicle and immediately approached Officers Counts and Jimenez,
shouting profanity.” Defs. Mot. Summ. J. at ¶ 5. Woodlen claims that he did not
immediately begin shouting. Rather, he got out of his car and walked in the Officers’
direction toward a state medical center to pick up free condoms. The Officers told him to
return to his vehicle. Woodlen complied, but did not get inside the car. Counts and
Jimenez then performed a Terry frisk. Although no weapons were found, Woodlen was
handcuffed and placed in the police cruiser. He continued to ask what he had done
wrong, often using profanity. The Officers radioed the Wilmington Data Center to run a
check on Woodlen’s vehicle. The stolen vehicle report revealed that the car was not
stolen, and Woodlen was released. However, the Officers issued him a parking ticket and
a citation for disorderly conduct. Both were eventually dismissed.
Woodlen then brought the current action against both Officers and Sergeant
Burke, who took Woodlen’s citizen complaint at the precinct office. Woodlen claimed
2
that the initial stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion and that the Officers had
no probable cause to place him under arrest. He also asserted a federal claim of malicious
prosecution along with several state causes of action. The District Court found that even
if Woodlen’s constitutional rights were infringed, the Officers are entitled to qualified
immunity. Woodlen appealed. The Appellees then moved for summary affirmance. We
directed the parties to submit briefs. Both parties complied. The appeal is now ripe for
review.1
II.
The Appellees understand Woodlen’s short informal appellate brief to raise
two issues. The first, that the District Court improperly granted summary judgment after
denying the Defendants’ previous motion, and second, that the order granting summary
judgment was in error. We agree with the Appellees that the District Court reserved the
right to reconsider its 2003 summary judgment order and alter its determination. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(b); United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir. 1973).2
Turning to Woodlen’s second argument, an official is not entitled to
qualified immunity if he has violated a constitutional right and that right is clearly
established, meaning “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was
1
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise de novo
review. See Gilles v. Davis, 427 F.3d 197, 203 (3d Cir. 2005).
2
Although an order denying qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the
collateral order doctrine, see Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528-30 (1985), it does not
adjudicate all of the claims with respect to all of the parties.
3
unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001). We
agree with the District Court that with respect to the initial stop and length of the
detention, even assuming that the Officers did not have reasonable suspicion, “officers of
reasonable competence could disagree on this issue, [and] immunity should be granted.”
In re City of Philadelphia Litig., 49 F.3d 945, 961-62 (3d Cir. 1995) (citation omitted);
see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (reasonableness of the stop); United States v.
Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685-86 (1985) (length of detention).
However, we conclude that Woodlen raises an additional issue: whether the
use of handcuffs and his placement inside the squad car was justified by the
circumstances. The use of handcuffs and other physical restraints does not necessarily
transform an investigatory seizure into a formal arrest requiring probable cause. See
Baker v. Monroe Township, 50 F.3d 1186, 1193 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing numerous
examples). However, the use of restraint must be reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances. See id.; Torres v. United States, 200 F.3d 179, 185-86 (3d Cir. 1999)
(finding use of drawn guns and handcuffs reasonable during the course of a warranted
search); see also Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles, 308 F.3d 987, 991 (2002) (finding the
use of handcuffs and drawn guns reasonable on a man mistaken for a suspect).
The facts regarding Woodlen’s handcuffing and detention are not
significantly disputed. The parties however disagree as to how Woodlen’s conduct
should be interpreted. Irrespective of whether the conduct is deemed “threatening”
4
Woodlen yelled at and angrily questioned the Officers. Even assuming that this conduct
is not sufficient to justify the use of handcuffs and confinement during an investigatory
stop, we cannot conclude that the right to be free from physical restraint under these
circumstances was clearly established.
The Supreme Court has not addressed a case dealing with closely parallel
facts and neither have we. In Baker, we found evidence that officers executing a warrant
pointed guns at and handcuffed members of a family walking up to a house for a social
visit sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. 50 F.3d at 1193. It was also
conclusively established that the family presented no evident threat to the officers’ safety.
Id. Here, the Officers could reasonably conclude that Woodlen’s conduct could have
been threatening, and unlike in Baker, guns were never involved. Although Woodlen
argues that he was physically injured, a fact not present in Baker, we simply cannot say
that a reasonable officer would have clearly known that handcuffing Woodlen violates the
Fourth Amendment. Thus, the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court.
5