Justia U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The school board has a policy of praying at its regular meetings, routinely attended by students. The district court upheld the policy, based on a Supreme Court holding that Nebraska's practice of opening legislative sessions with a prayer was not a violation of the Establishment Clause. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that a school board may not claim the exception established for legislative bodies and that traditional Establishment Clause principles governing prayer in public schools apply.

The Township filed disciplinary charges against an officer, which were suspended pending state investigation, and placed him on paid leave. The state and county declined to investigate. The Township reinstituted charges. Before his hearing, the officer filed suit claiming violation of due process rights by publicizing charges and failing to provide a hearing before suspension; violation of the First Amendment by retaliating for requesting a hearing. The court granted summary judgment to the Township on due process claims, but denied summary judgment on the First Amendment claim. After a hearing, the board fired the officer. Because the officer waited until just before trial, the district court denied a motion to amend. He filed a new complaint, alleging retaliatory termination. The jury found for defendants on the First Amendment claims. The court dismissed the second suit, citing res judicata. The Third Circuit reversed in part. Res judicata does not bar claims predicated on events that postdate the filing of the initial complaint. The court properly instructed jurors that the township should prevail if it showed that it would have reached the same decision absent protected conduct. The officer's interest in a hearing before suspension with pay was outweighed by the township's interest in maintaining the integrity of its police force.

The school district and chief of police sent an e-mail to officials and citizens instructing them "if you see this person in or around the district schools, please contact the police." Plaintiff claimed that the email used his real name and stated that he had been known to hang around schools, had not approached any kids, and that his mental status was unknown. It contained his picture, home address, the make, model, and license plate number of his vehicle, and his driver's license number. His suit, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleged deprivation of freedom of movement, illegal seizure of personal records, violation of right to privacy, conspiracy, and failure to train, supervise and discipline agents. The district court denied plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously and, after a deadline for filing in his own name passed, dismissed. The Third Circuit affirmed. The district court provided two independently sufficient reasons for dismissal: refusal to prosecute in compliance with court orders and consideration of factors concluding that plaintiff would not suffer substantial harm that might sufficiently outweigh the public interest in an open trial.

An essential witness in a rape, robbery, murder prosecution refused to testify because of threats to her family and went as far as pulling a knife on a police officer. She evaded capture during two trials and, after a second conviction was overturned, was jailed as a material witness. A February 2 trial date was continued until May 25; the witness was incarcerated for 54 days before being released. The prosecution did not notify the judge who had ordered the incarceration of the continuance and, when the witness's father died, allowed her only a short visit to the funeral home, in handcuffs. Following a remand, the district court denied the prosecutor qualified immunity with respect to claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Third Circuit affirmed. The incarceration was a seizure, for Fourth Amendment purposes, and a reasonable jury could find the duration unreasonable. As the sole government official in possession of the relevant information, the prosecutor had a duty of disclosure that was neither discretionary nor advocative, but was a purely administrative act, not entitled to the shield of immunity,

Defendant was indicted on one count of attempted possession with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine (21 U.S.C. 846). Following indictment, arrest, and detention, the government sought to collect a DNA sample, relying on 42 U.S.C. 14135a(a)(1)(A), which permits the collection of DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted. The district court concluded that the statute was unconstitutional and prohibited the government from taking the sample prior to conviction. After determining that the matter concerned a collateral order, subject to interlocutory appeal, the Third Circuit reversed. Arrestees have a diminished expectation of privacy in their identities, and DNA collection from arrestees serves important law enforcement interests; such collection is reasonable and does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Petitioner, convicted of armed assault and murder in 1977, is detained in a federal facility in West Virginia. While in prison he was convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He is serving an aggregate sentence comprised of sentences that were imposed under the D.C. Code and the U.S. Code. The district court denied his habeas corpus petition, reasoning that the U.S. Parole Commission had a rational basis for denying parole (the unusual circumstances of his offenses) and that petitioner was not entitled to benefit from the release-date guarantee under the earlier version of the Sentencing Reform Act because the Commission applied D.C. Code regulations, not the current SRA, in declining to set a parole date. The District Court also denied a certificate of appealability explaining that petitioner, in custody by virtue of a District of Columbia judgment, is considered a state prisoner and had not made the threshold showing for issuance of such a certificate. The First Circuit agreed, stating that petitioner had not made the necessary showing of constitutional violations that would justify issuance of a COA.

Plaintiff accepted a Rule 68 offer of judgment in his suit against the Newark Police Department and officers in the amount of $55,000. The offer stated an intention to resolve the litigation "in its entirety." Upon receiving the acceptance, Newark wrote to the judge: "Defendants' Offer of Judgment was for all ... claims .... If the Plaintiff intends to seek costs and attorneys' fees, the Defendants seek immediate relief and clarification." The district court entered judgment for $55,000 and denied plaintiff's request for fees. The Third Circuit remanded for determination of fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988. A valid Rule 68 offer of judgment necessarily includes costs and fees, explicitly or implicitly. When costs are stated explicitly, the offeror is not subject to any additional liability; when the offer is silent as to fees and costs, they must be fixed by the court after acceptance. Extrinsic evidence of subjective intent is not admissible to determine whether a Rule 68 offer includes costs. Use of the catchall phrase "all of Plaintiff's claims" did not explicitly cover fees and costs. Unlike other relief, Sect. 1988 attorney's fees are not compensation for the injury. Their award is uniquely separable from the cause of action.

Petitioner, serving two consecutive life sentences for murders, exhausted state appeals and filed a federal habeas corpus petition, pro se. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely. Petitioner concedes that his petition was not timely under the one-year statute of limitations of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. 2254, but contends that equitable tolling should be granted because his inability to speak, read, or write English, coupled with the prison's lack of Spanish-language legal materials and repeated denials of translation assistance, are extraordinary circumstances. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that language inability coupled with lack of assistance can constitute extraordinary circumstances and that petitioner exercised reasonable diligence in pursuing his claims. His claim that the trial court committed a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation under by admitting a non-testifying co-defendant's confession into evidence despite its potential to prejudice petitioner's defense is debatable and requires further development.

Plaintiff, arrested for violating a township public intoxication ordinance, argued that the law was superseded by or contrary to the New Jersey Alcoholism Treatment and Rehabilitation Act. The judge dismissed the charge. Plaintiff's federal suit, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and state law, was dismissed. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that 42 U.S.C. 1983 does not provide a remedy because the ordinance under which plaintiff was arrested is not unambiguously invalid.

Plaintiffs, lawful permanent residents taken into custody based on past convictions, (8 U.S.C. 1182) sought a declaratory judgment that continued detention of putative class members, without bond hearings, violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Due Process Clause. The District Court denied class certification and dismissed the class complaint, based on 8 U.S.C. 1252(f)(1), which precludes class actions that seek to "enjoin or restrain the operation of" several immigration statutes. The Third Circuit reversed. The word "restrain" does not encompass classwide declaratory relief.