Bozic v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
711 F. App'x 671
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Bozic, a state prisoner convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced in 2008 to life without parole, sued claiming his confinement was illegal because there is no written sentencing order in the record.
- He filed in Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas; the case was removed to federal district court and a Magistrate Judge (by consent) granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and denied Bozic’s remand motion.
- Bozic alleged violations of the Thirteenth Amendment (involuntary servitude) and Pennsylvania criminal statutes for unlawful restraint and false imprisonment.
- The Magistrate Judge considered certified court commitment, docket entries, and sentencing transcript showing sentence imposed and docketed; Bozic did not dispute those documents’ authenticity.
- The court held claims that would invalidate the conviction/sentence are barred by Heck; but concluded that even if no written order existed, Bozic’s confinement is lawful and his claims fail on the merits.
- The district court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed them as meritless; the Third Circuit summarily affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bozic can proceed on federal claim that confinement violates Thirteenth Amendment because there is no written sentencing order | Lack of a written sentencing order makes confinement involuntary servitude and unconstitutional | Conviction and sentence were validly imposed; absence of a written order (if true) is a record-keeping error and does not invalidate confinement | Dismissed; claim fails—conviction/sentence stand and record-keeping error does not render confinement unconstitutional |
| Whether Heck v. Humphrey bars Bozic's claims for damages based on alleged unconstitutional imprisonment | Bozic argued his paperwork-based challenge does not necessarily invalidate his conviction | Defendant argued success would attack the validity of confinement and thus be Heck-barred | Court found Heck bars claims that would invalidate conviction, but here a successful paperwork claim would not invalidate the sentence; nonetheless the claim lacked merit |
| Whether supplemental jurisdiction over state-law false imprisonment and unlawful restraint claims should be declined | Bozic sought remand of state-law claims to state court | Defendant argued federal court could resolve related state claims and dismiss them as meritless | Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed state claims as detention was lawful |
| Whether absence of a written sentencing order renders detention unlawful under Pennsylvania criminal statutes | Bozic: no sentencing order exists, so detention is unlawful | Defendant: sentencing transcripts, docket, and commitment show lawful sentence; any missing written order is a clerical/record error | Held: detention lawful; state criminal statutes (false imprisonment/unlawful restraint) not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (claims challenging conviction or sentence must be invalidated before damages suit proceeds)
- Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 1999) (standards for § 1983 claims and review is plenary)
- Evans v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 645 F.3d 650 (3d Cir. 2011) (prisoner cannot avoid sentence due to judicial or record-keeping error)
- Bright v. Westmoreland County, 443 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2006) (standards for district court exercise or decline of supplemental jurisdiction)
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc., 998 F.2d 1192 (3d Cir. 1993) (court may consider undisputedly authentic documents attached to motion to dismiss)