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

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.

Following an altercation concerning auto repairs, plaintiff, an African American, found damage to his car and was threatened by a garage employee; he called 911. Garage employees also called 911. When officers responded, plaintiff and defendant, a white officer, had a verbal altercation about whether defendant was responding as he would respond to a white victim. Defendant handcuffed plaintiff, placed him in the patrol car, and spoke to the garage employees without questioning plaintiff. He arrested plaintiff and one of the garage employees. Plaintiff was acquitted. The garage employee apparently entered a plea of no contest. In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law, a jury awarded plaintiff $80,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000 in punitive damages. The district court overturned the verdict and entered judgment for defendant. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to show unlawful seizure, equal protection violations, and that the defendant lacked probable cause for the vehicle search that followed towing of plaintiff's car.

The state notified a concert promoter that use of two names might violate New Jersey trademark laws. The promoter provided evidence of common law trademarks, but the state notified the hotel venue to advertise the shows as a "tribute" or "salute" to named groups. The promoter filed suit, claiming that the state's enforcement violated the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125 and its civil rights. The district court entered a temporary restraining order, but the state changed its position. The court did not issue an injunction and denied attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988. The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments under the "catalyst" theory and holding that the promoter was not a "prevailing party." Even the judge did not consider the TRO an enforceable judgment on the merits and the state's change of position mooted the constitutional issues.

The plaintiffs were subjected to raids as part of "Operation Return to Sender," implemented to apprehend fugitive aliens. The complaint included "Bivens" claims: unreasonable home entries, unreasonable searches; unreasonable seizures, all in violation of the Fourth Amendment; a Fourth Amendment claim for excessive force by four individuals; a Fifth Amendment substantive due process claim involving three individuals; and a Fifth Amendment equal protection claim by one individual. The district court denied a motion to dismiss. The Third Circuit reversed on qualified immunity grounds. The plaintiffs did not allege that the defendants, high-level federal Immigration enforcement supervisors, participated in the raids, adopted an unconstitutional policy, or had legally sufficient notice of the unconstitutional conduct of subordinates. They did not identify what defendants should have done differently with respect to training or other matters, that would have prevented the unconstitutional conduct. The plaintiffs may pursue official capacity claims for injunctive relief against any further intimidation or unlawful entry. The court did not address individual capacity claims for damages against the lower-ranking agents

The student was suspended for using a home computer to create an internet profile of her middle school principal, including sexual content and vulgar language. The site did not include the principal's name, but did include his picture from the school website. Other students were not able to view the site from school computers and the student made an effort to limit viewers to a few of her friends. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the school on First Amendment claims (42. U.S.C. 1983). The Third Circuit reversed in part. The school violated the student's rights in suspending her for for off-campus speech that caused no substantial disruption in school and that could not reasonably have led school officials to forecast substantial disruption in school. There was no disruption beyond "general rumblings" and a few minutes of talk in class; the profile was outrageous and there was no evidence that anyone took it seriously. The court rejected the parent's Fourteenth Amendment claim of interference with their "liberty" interest in raising their child. The court affirmed that the school handbook and computer use policy were not overbroad and vague.

A student reported to her aunt, a member of the school board (plaintiff), that she had seen a teacher hugging another student. The investigation ended because the teacher and minor student denied the incident and the plaintiff raised concerns about the reporting student's credibility. More than a year later, a police officer saw the teacher and the minor student in a sexual encounter and the teacher was arrested. A copy of the report on an investigation that followed, containing plaintiff's assertions about her niece's credibility, was leaked to the press during a school board election. The district court dismissed claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that there is no Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy with respect to the information at issue. Plaintiff may not have intended wide-dissemination of her opinion but she volunteered it to others and it did not concern autonomy and independence in personal decision-making.

The petitioner, convicted in 1982 of murdering a police officer and sentenced to death, exhausted state appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court denied a habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and subsequently remanded the Third Circuit's grant of relief on the sentence. On remand, the Third Circuit held that the death sentence must be vacated because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court incorrectly applied Supreme Court precedent (Mills v. Maryland). The verdict form and jury instructions, particularly a statement that â[w]e, the jury, have found unanimously . . . one or more aggravating circumstances which outweigh any mitigating circumstances,â created a substantial probability the jury believed it was precluded from finding a mitigating circumstance that had not been unanimously agreed upon. The court noted that the form has been amended since the petitioner's conviction.