Donna Turkos v. Borough of Dupont
17-1884
| 3rd Cir. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- In May 2013 Donna Turkos reported alleged harassment by her ex-husband, David Turkos, and presented a 2008 Protection From Abuse (PFA) order she said remained in effect.
- Dupont officers Jason Kwiatkowski and John Saranchuk investigated and, after consulting the Luzerne County 911 Center, Sheriff’s Department, and Prothonotary records, concluded no active PFA existed and charged Turkos with tampering with public records, false reports, and unsworn falsification.
- Some sources (the PFA Office and a document Turkos provided) indicated a PFA was active; other official records suggested the extension had been vacated and the PFA had expired.
- After charges were filed, the Luzerne County DA’s office noted conflicting records; at a preliminary hearing the Magisterial District Court dismissed the charges for insufficient evidence.
- Turkos sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment retaliatory prosecution) and Pennsylvania tort law (malicious prosecution, abuse of process), and named Dupont Borough and the two officers; the District Court granted summary judgment to defendants, and the Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliatory prosecution (against officers) | Turkos says charges were retaliation for her protected speech (accusing ex-husband) and officers lacked probable cause. | Officers contend probable cause existed based on multiple official sources showing no active PFA, so no retaliatory-prosecution claim. | Affirmed for defendants: probable cause existed as a matter of law; retaliatory-prosecution fails. |
| Malicious prosecution (state law) | Turkos argues proceedings were without probable cause and motivated by malice; case ended in her favor. | Defendants say probable cause existed, negating malicious-prosecution element. | Summary judgment for defendants: element of no probable cause not met. |
| Municipal liability under § 1983 (Dupont Borough) | Borough liable for constitutional violation caused by its officers. | No constitutional violation occurred (probable cause existed), so no municipal liability. | Affirmed for Borough: no underlying violation, so no municipal liability. |
| Abuse of process (state law) | Turkos claims officers misused prosecutorial process. | Defendants argue no post-initiation perversion of process; they merely carried process to its authorized conclusion. | Summary judgment for defendants: no evidence of abuse or perversion after initiation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (retaliatory-prosecution plaintiff must show absence of probable cause)
- Thomas v. Independence Twp., 463 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2006) (elements of First Amendment retaliation)
- Dempsey v. Bucknell Univ., 834 F.3d 457 (3d Cir. 2016) (probable cause exists when fair probability of crime; courts may rule as matter of law)
- Wright v. City of Phila., 409 F.3d 595 (3d Cir. 2005) (officers need not resolve conflicting evidence or obtain retrospectively accurate credibility determinations)
- Kelley v. Gen. Teamsters, Chauffers and Helpers, Local Union 249, 544 A.2d 940 (Pa. 1988) (malicious prosecution requires lack of probable cause, malice, and favorable termination)
- Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137 (3d Cir. 1995) (two-step municipal liability analysis under § 1983)
- Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992) (framework for municipal liability inquiry)