511 F. App'x 155
3rd Cir.2013Background
- Favata sued Seidel, a Pennsylvania State Police trooper, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation and malicious prosecution.
- Seidel issued non-traffic citations to Favata and Rapson after conflicting accounts of an October 23, 2010 highway exit-ramp altercation.
- Favata allegedly used a middle finger during the incident; Rapson alleged Favata acted aggressively and cut him off.
- Favata’s disorderly conduct charge was based on allegedly causing annoyance by displaying the middle finger with no legitimate purpose.
- Both drivers’ charges were withdrawn at a January 26, 2011 Magisterial District Judge hearing.
- The district court granted Seidel summary judgment, finding probable cause defeated Favata’s retaliation claim; Favata appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probable cause defeats retaliation claim | Favata argues lack of probable cause to charge him. | Seidel argues probable cause existed based on the accounts and location. | Probable cause existed; favors Seidel |
| Whether the existence of probable cause forecloses summary-judgment against Seidel on retaliation claim | Favata contends retaliation claim survives if protected conduct involved. | Seidel contends probable cause defeats retaliation claim as a matter of law. | Yes, probable cause defeats the retaliation claim; summary judgment for Seidel affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (probable cause requirement in retaliatory-prosecution context)
- Miller v. Mitchell, 598 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 2010) (probable cause requirement applies even when investigator and prosecutor are same person)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964) (probable cause: fair probability of crime at issue)
- Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781 (3d Cir. 2000) (objective inquiry for probable cause based on information available)
- Sherwood v. Mulvihill, 113 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 1997) (probable cause standard for retaliation analysis)
- Egolf v. Witmer, 526 F.3d 104 (3d Cir. 2008) (probable cause assessment in retaliation contexts)