Christopher Hall v. Shawn Nisbit

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 21-2139
__________
CHRISTOPHER R. HALL,
Appellant
v.
DETECTIVE SHAWN NISBIT; DETECTIVE RICHARD BEAGHLEY; OFFICER
RYAN HASARA; SERGEANT OSWALDO TOLEDO; OFFICER JOHN LANDES;
OFFICER RAYMOND TOWNSEND; OFFICER WILLIAM PLYMOUTH;
SERGEANT SHAWN WILLIAMS; OFFICER JEFFREY ANDERSON; SERGEANT
RICHARD KONDAN; SERGEANT SHANE LAROSA; OFFICER ROBERT HILL,
JR.; OFFICER RYAN BROWN; OFFICER OFC. AMMATURO; OFFICER OFC.
FARLEY; OFFICER OFC. NYMAN; ABINGTON TOWNSHIP POLICE
DEPARTMENT; MUNICIPAL TOWNSHIP BUILDING
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-04382)
District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 12, 2022
Before: GREENAWAY, JR., PORTER and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 29, 2022)
___________
OPINION *
___________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant Christopher Hall appeals from the District Court’s order granting
summary judgment to the Appellees in a civil rights action he brought under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. We will affirm the District Court’s order in part, vacate in part, and remand for
further proceedings.
In December 2017, police responded to a report that several people were arguing
outside Hall’s residence. By the time police arrived, none of those persons were outside.
After responding officers allegedly heard a woman screaming and loud movements
coming from inside the house, they broke down the door and conducted a “sweep” of the
residence. Police had been informed that Hall resided at the home and that he was
wanted on an outstanding warrant for aggravated assault. While they did not find him
there, police did spot marijuana plants in a bedroom. Appellee Nisbit obtained a warrant
to search the house. As a result of the search, police recovered guns (some stolen),
ammunition, marijuana plants, and digital scales, among other things. Hall was
eventually arrested and found guilty by a jury of six counts of illegal possession of a
firearm, two counts of narcotics violations, and three counts of receiving stolen property.
He is currently serving a 13-to-28-year prison sentence.
After his conviction and sentencing, Hall filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 in state court, and Appellees successfully removed the action to federal
court. Hall disputed the officers’ version of events and claimed that they lacked a factual
or legal basis to force entry to the house and perform a search. He also contended that
2
police officers falsified police reports, seized his property using an illegal warrant, swore
a probable cause affidavit containing false statements, were not properly trained, and
falsely arrested him. He asserted violations of his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth,
Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, a Monell 1
claim, and pendent state law tort claims, and he sought declaratory, injunctive, and
monetary relief. After the parties conducted discovery, Appellees moved for summary
judgment. The District Court granted summary judgment in Appellees’ favor. The
District Court explained that the favorable termination rule in the U.S. Supreme Court’s
decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), barred Hall from obtaining
relief via his § 1983 lawsuit. See Dist. Ct. Order entered May 25, 2021, at 1-2 n.1. Hall
filed this timely appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the District Court’s order
granting summary judgment de novo. See S.H. ex rel. Durrell v. Lower Merion Sch.
Dist., 729 F.3d 248, 256 (3d Cir. 2013). Summary judgment is proper when there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Kaucher v. Cty. of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 422-23 (3d
Cir. 2006). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. See Fairview Twp. v.
EPA, 773 F.2d 517, 525 n.15 (3d Cir. 1985).
In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff is barred from bringing a civil
rights action under § 1983 if the success of that lawsuit would necessarily imply the
1
Monell v. Dep’t. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658,
3 694 (1978).
invalidity of the prisoner’s conviction. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. In those
circumstances, a plaintiff “must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed
on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal
authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Id. at 486-87. Because Hall did
not show that his convictions or sentence had been reversed, expunged, declared invalid,
or that a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254 had issued, the District Court concluded that
Heck barred all claims in Hall’s complaint. See Dist. Ct. Order at 1-2 n.1.
However, we have explained that “the Heck bar is applicable only when, at the
time the § 1983 suit would normally accrue, there is an existing criminal conviction.”
Dique v. N.J. State Police, 603 F.3d 181, 187 (3d Cir. 2010) (discussing Wallace v. Kato,
549 U.S. 384 (2007)). Thus, Hall’s false arrest and illegal search claims accrued before
his conviction. See id.; see also Estate of Lagano v. Bergen Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 769
F.3d 850, 861 (3d Cir. 2014) (illegal-search claim accrues when plaintiff is aware of
harm). This, however, is different from whether Heck substantively bars his claims and
thus an accrued claim may still be barred under Heck. Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393-94.
Because it is unclear whether the District Court applied this distinction, we will vacate
the District Court’s grant of judgment to the individual defendants 2 on Hall’s Fourth
Amendment claims.
2
While Hall also asserted a Monell claim, he failed to present evidence that any of the
defendants’ conduct was based on a policy or custom, and the institutional defendants are
4
However, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment with respect to the rest of
Hall’s constitutional claims on other bases. Summary judgment was appropriate on
Hall’s due process claims under the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. The Fifth
Amendment Due Process Clause applies to federal officials, and none of the Appellees
are. See Nguyen v. U.S. Catholic Conference, 719 F.2d 52, 54 (3d Cir. 1983) (per
curiam); see also Bingue v. Prunchak, 512 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008). Hall’s
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim fails because Hall’s claims concerning the
search and arrest are appropriately considered under the Fourth Amendment, and “when
government behavior is governed by a specific constitutional amendment, due process
analysis is inappropriate.” Berg v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261, 268 (3d Cir. 2000).
The constitutionality of the search and arrest would be “governed by the Fourth
Amendment rather than due process analysis.” Id. at 268-69 (citing United States v.
Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 n.7 (1997)); see also DeLade v. Cargan, 972 F.3d 207, 212 (3d Cir.
2020); Doe v. Groody, 361 F.3d 232, 238 n.3 (3d Cir. 2004).
As for Hall’s First, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendment claims, summary
judgment was appropriate because Hall did not explain the relevance of those provisions
or present evidence to support the claims. See Razak v. Uber Techs, Inc., 951 F.3d 137,
144 (3d Cir. 2020) (explaining that party opposing summary judgment cannot rely on
speculation and conclusory allegations).
therefore entitled to summary judgment.
5
It appears that Hall also asserted state-law claims, which the District Court did not
specifically address. We interpret the District Court to have declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Hall’s claims under state law upon granting judgment to
the defendants on all of the federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because our
decision to remand this matter as to Hall’s Fourth Amendment claims means that not all
claims over which the District Court has original jurisdiction have been denied, we will
also vacate and remand the District Court’s order as to supplemental jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we will vacate the District Court’s judgment to the extent that it
granted judgment to the individual defendants on Hall’s Fourth Amendment claims and
dismissed the state law claims, affirm in all other respects, and remand for further
proceedings.
6