542 F. App'x 152
3rd Cir.2013Background
- Boldrini, pro se, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Trooper Carol Ponce and others maliciously prosecuted him after a 2004–2005 business dispute with a customer (Donald Ferrario).
- State trooper Ponce filed criminal charges (fraud and theft by deception); in March 2010 Boldrini entered the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program by agreement and the trial court ordered ARD.
- Boldrini alleged defendants, acting under color of law, prosecuted him knowing he was innocent and sought compensatory damages and related state-law claims.
- The District Court granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions, dismissed the complaint, denied leave to amend as futile, denied discovery motions, and denied reconsideration. Boldrini appealed.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding the malicious-prosecution and related conspiracy claims are barred because ARD does not constitute a favorable termination under Heck and related precedent; the court also upheld denial of amendment, reconsideration, and discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim is cognizable given ARD disposition | Boldrini: ARD and expungement show he was not lawfully convicted and he suffered from improper prosecution | Defendants: ARD is not a "favorable termination"; Heck precludes § 1983 malicious-prosecution until favorable termination | Held: ARD is not a favorable termination; Heck bars the § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim |
| Whether conspiracy claim tied to prosecution survives Heck bar | Boldrini: Conspiracy claim distinct and allowed despite ARD | Defendants: Conspiracy claim is derivative of barred malicious-prosecution claim and also precluded | Held: Conspiracy claim is barred for same reason as malicious-prosecution |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted | Boldrini: Proposed amendment (massive complaint) would cure defects and state viable claims | Defendants: Amendment would be futile and complaint is prolix/vague | Held: Denial of leave to amend affirmed as amendment would be futile and complaint was impermissibly prolix |
| Whether motions for reconsideration and discovery should have been granted | Boldrini: Presented newly discovered evidence (criminal record lacking felonies) and sought discovery to support claims | Defendants: Evidence is consistent with ARD expungement and does not change Heck analysis; discovery unnecessary after dismissal | Held: Denials affirmed; expungement/existing documents explain absence of charges and do not create a favorable termination; discovery was properly denied after dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 action attacking conviction requires prior favorable termination)
- Hector v. Watt, 235 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2000) (malicious-prosecution requires favorable termination)
- Gilles v. Davis, 427 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2005) (ARD does not constitute favorable termination)
- Kossler v. Crisanti, 564 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2009) (Heck bar applies to malicious-prosecution claims)
- Long v. Atl. City Police Dep’t, 670 F.3d 436 (3d Cir. 2012) (conspiracy claims tied to barred prosecution claims are similarly precluded)
- Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002) (leave to amend should be freely given unless futile)
- Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (standards for reconsideration motions)
- In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696 (3d Cir. 1996) (pleading must identify meaningful allegations; prolix pleadings may be dismissed)
- ALA, Inc. v. CCAIR, Inc., 29 F.3d 855 (3d Cir. 1994) (written instruments attached to pleadings control over inconsistent allegations)
- Centifanti v. Nix, 865 F.2d 1422 (3d Cir. 1989) (treatment of amendments when leave of court is required)