Cal Heidelberg, Jr. v. Erie Police Department
678 F. App'x 65
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Heidelberg, an inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution after Erie police found crack cocaine on him, charges were later nolle prossed following suppression of the evidence.
- Defendants included the City of Erie, several police officers, and an assistant district attorney.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the Magistrate Judge granted dismissal on March 27, 2015, finding no Monell claim against the city, that Heidelberg was not "innocent" under circuit precedent for false arrest/malicious prosecution relief, and that the prosecutor had absolute immunity.
- Heidelberg filed a post-judgment motion titled "Motion to Set Aside Judgment to Reopen Case Due to Non Culpable Negligence," claiming he did not receive the dismissal order because he had been transferred and failed to receive mail. The Magistrate Judge denied that motion in an August 25, 2015 text order.
- Heidelberg filed a notice of appeal on September 21, 2015. The court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the March 27 dismissal (appeal untimely) but had jurisdiction over the August 25 denial of the motion to reopen the appeal period and affirmed that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal from March 27, 2015 dismissal is timely | Heidelberg contends he did not receive the dismissal order and thus appeal should be considered | Defendants argue the 30-day appeal period expired on April 27, 2015 | Appeal from March 27 order dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (untimely notice) |
| Whether Magistrate should have reopened appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) | Heidelberg says he did not receive notice due to prison transfer and clerk error; requests reopening | Defendants say order was mailed to Heidelberg’s last known address and he failed to formally notify the court of address change | Denial of motion to reopen affirmed: service mailed to last known address; Heidelberg responsible for filing change-of-address notice |
| Whether City of Erie is liable under § 1983 (Monell) | Heidelberg did not allege a municipal policy or custom but seeks to hold city liable for officers’ actions | Defendants contend absence of Monell allegations requires dismissal of municipal claim | Dismissal affirmed: plaintiff failed to allege policy or custom necessary for municipal liability |
| Whether claims against prosecutor/individual officers survive | Heidelberg challenges conduct as malicious prosecution/false arrest | Defendants invoke absolute prosecutorial immunity (Imbler) and circuit precedent requiring plaintiff’s innocence for certain relief (Hector) | Claims against assistant DA barred by absolute immunity; relief for false arrest/malicious prosecution unavailable because plaintiff was not "innocent" under controlling precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires allegation of policy or custom)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutors have absolute immunity from suits for money damages for actions within prosecutorial function)
- Hector v. Watt, 235 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2000) (in this circuit, relief for unlawful search-related injuries that lead to prosecution requires showing of innocence)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (timely filing of notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Theede v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 172 F.3d 1262 (3d Cir. 1999) (litigant bears burden to file formal notice of address change to alert the court)
- Poole v. Family Court of New Castle County, 368 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2004) (court clerks are not required to infer or act on address changes reflected only on mail return envelopes)
- Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir. 2010) (appellate jurisdiction may extend to unspecified orders if connection, intent, and lack of prejudice exist)
- Polonski v. Trump Taj Mahal Associates, 137 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 1998) (factors for considering unspecified orders on appeal)