552 F. App'x 169
3rd Cir.2014Background
- Christopher Washington was stopped by Upper Darby police on Feb. 23, 2005; he gave false identifying information and was arrested. Officers recovered packets of crack cocaine Washington discarded in the police vehicle.
- Police affidavit stated Washington matched a robbery suspect description; Washington alleges the affidavit was fabricated after drugs were found.
- Washington was convicted; the Pennsylvania Superior Court later reversed his drug conviction and his false-identification conviction, finding lack of probable cause.
- Washington sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting Seven Fourteenth Amendment-based claims (procedural/substantive due process, denial of access to courts, deprivation of liberty, wrongful prosecution/conviction/incarceration); he abandoned a malicious-prosecution claim and conceded his false-arrest claim was time-barred.
- The District Court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings; Washington appealed. The Third Circuit affirms, concluding no actionable constitutional violation was alleged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arrest/prosecution without probable cause states a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim | Washington contends his arrest and allegedly fabricated affidavit deprived him of substantive due process and caused wrongful incarceration | Defendants argue the Fourth Amendment (not substantive due process) governs claims based on unreasonable seizures; Washington admits guilt so malicious-prosecution-type relief is unavailable | Dismissed: Albright forecloses substantive-due-process claim for lack of probable cause; Fourth Amendment governs and plaintiff cannot recover for prosecution that uncovered actual criminal conduct |
| Whether fabrication of probable-cause evidence supports a substantive due process claim | Washington says fabrication of affidavit caused his conviction and incarceration | Defendants say he does not allege fabrication of evidence of guilt, only of probable cause; substantive-due-process relief is improper where Fourth Amendment covers the conduct | Dismissed: fabrication of probable-cause allegations do not state a substantive due process claim when plaintiff is not innocent of the underlying crime |
| Whether defendants deprived Washington of procedural due process or access to courts | Washington asserts procedural process was denied and claims denial of access to courts via alleged cover-up | Defendants note Washington pursued suppression and appellate review successfully; no allegation that defendants prevented or rendered litigation ineffective | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to identify what process was due or how it was denied; access-to-courts claim fails because no cover-up prevented litigation |
| Whether novel claims (deprivation of liberty, wrongful prosecution/conviction/incarceration) are cognizable under § 1983 | Washington advances these as distinct Fourteenth Amendment torts to recover for incarceration | Defendants argue no recognized constitutional causes of action exist for these labels beyond established frameworks | Dismissed: Court refuses to create new § 1983 causes of action; judgment for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1994) (substantive due process cannot be used when a specific amendment—here the Fourth Amendment—provides the protection)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (use the specific constitutional provision when text explicitly protects against the conduct)
- Hector v. Watt, 235 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2000) (malicious-prosecution-type § 1983 claims under the Fourth Amendment require plaintiffs to be innocent to recover for prosecution-related injuries)
- Sikirica v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 2005) (standard of review for judgment on the pleadings)
- Townes v. City of New York, 176 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 1999) (unreasonable search/seizure invades privacy; discovery of crime is not itself the evil giving rise to damages)
- Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497 (3d Cir. 2003) (cover-ups that prevent vindication of rights can violate right of access to courts; must actually prevent meaningful access)