Aaron Houston v. City of Philadelphia
669 F. App'x 89
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Houston, a Philadelphia resident, drew but did not fire a legally owned pistol during an altercation; police later arrested him and confiscated the pistol.
- Criminal charges were later dismissed and expunged; Houston did not follow the City’s property-return procedures and the original pistol was not returned.
- Houston purchased a new pistol and applied for a City carry license; the application was denied and the agency affirmed on appeal; Houston did not seek review in state court.
- Houston sued in federal court pro se asserting Fourth Amendment (false arrest; unlawful search/seizure; fabrication of warrant), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection; due process), and state-law claims.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; plaintiff submitted an affidavit in a sur-reply contradicting his deposition and police reports.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims; the Third Circuit affirmed, adopting the District Court’s reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest / fabricated warrant | Houston contended officers arrested him without probable cause and a warrant was fabricated | Officers had lawful basis for arrest and any warrant was valid | No genuine dispute of material fact; summary judgment for defendants |
| Search & seizure (return of firearm) | Officer Barbera seized the gun without a warrant at 4:30 a.m. (per affidavit) | Police report and deposition placed warrant and seizure later; affidavit contradicted prior sworn testimony | Court disregarded inconsistent affidavit; no genuine factual dispute for plaintiff |
| Equal protection / due process (City policies) | City treated Houston unfairly in denying license/return of property | City applied lawful procedures and denial was lawful | No genuine dispute; claims fail as matter of law |
| Second Amendment challenge | Denial of carry/license and retention of weapon violated rights | Governmental interests and existing law permitted restrictions | No Second Amendment violation shown; summary judgment for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Wiest v. Tyco Elecs. Corp., 812 F.3d 319 (3d Cir. 2016) (standards for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment and credibility/jury-function principles)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) (probable cause in drug-possession arrests)
- Dowling v. City of Philadelphia, 855 F.2d 136 (3d Cir. 1988) (false arrest standards)
- Sherwood v. Mulvihill, 113 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 1997) (Fourth Amendment arrest analysis)
- Jiminez v. All Am. Rathskeller, Inc., 503 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2007) (disregarding inconsistent affidavit opposing summary judgment)
- EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys., Inc., 618 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2010) (summary judgment and record consideration)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (prisoner due process and property rights principles)
- Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2000) (due process in municipal contexts)
- Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2006) (procedural due process and property deprivation)
- Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (framework for Second Amendment challenges)