Gartor Brown v. Upper Darby Police De
20-1452
| 3rd Cir. | Jul 14, 2021Background
- Brown was arrested in Aug. 2015; on Oct. 2, 2015 Detective Blohm obtained a facially valid warrant to collect Brown’s DNA via buccal swab.
- Brown was placed alone in a holding cell, spoke with Blohm and his public defender (Sobel), refused to cooperate, and physically resisted officers’ attempts to collect a swab; officers briefly restrained him twice and ultimately obtained a sample; the incident was recorded on video.
- Brown sued in 2016 alleging excessive force during the DNA collection; he filed an amended complaint in Mar. 2018 adding new defendants and claims based on two unrelated assaults occurring after the buccal-swab incident (including Feb. 2016).
- The District Court dismissed some claims, admitted the cell-video at summary judgment, and granted summary judgment for defendants on the remaining federal and state-law claims; Brown appealed pro se.
- The Third Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed: Sobel (public defender) was not acting under color of state law; newly added claims were time-barred and did not relate back; the force used to obtain the swab was objectively reasonable; municipal/failure-to-train and state-law claims failed; PSTCA immunity applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether public defender Sobel acted under color of state law for §1983 | Sobel’s advice and presence during attempts to obtain the swab made him liable under §1983 | Polk County: public defenders providing legal advice are not state actors | Sobel not acting under color of state law; §1983 claims against him dismissed |
| Whether newly alleged incidents (Oct. 2015 prison incident; Feb. 2016 assault) relate back or are timely | The amended allegations were close in time and ought to relate back / be tolled due to case stay | Claims are separate occurrences, filed after the 2-year §1983 limitations period and do not relate back; no applicable stay | Claims barred by the two-year statute of limitations; relation-back and tolling arguments rejected |
| Whether officers used excessive force obtaining the buccal swab (Fourth Amendment) | Force shown on video was excessive despite lack of blows; Brown resisted | Officers had a facially valid warrant, attempted voluntary collection, used minimal, brief restraint in response to active resistance | Summary judgment for officers; force was objectively reasonable under Graham/Maryland v. King |
| Whether other federal claims (First Amendment retaliation, Eighth deliberate indifference, Equal Protection) and municipal failure-to-train are proven | Brown asserted multiple constitutional violations and municipal culpability | No evidence of constitutional violation; no basis for municipal liability or failure-to-train claims | Summary judgment for defendants; no underlying violation and no basis for municipal liability |
| Whether state-law claims survive and PSTCA immunity applies | Brown alleged state torts against officers and Sobel | Video and record show no actionable state torts; PSTCA shields municipal employees unless willful misconduct shown | Sobel has no supporting evidence for state claims; officers protected by PSTCA immunity; state claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981) (public defender not acting under color of state law for §1983)
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013) (buccal swab for DNA is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness test for use of force)
- Kopec v. Tate, 361 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 2004) (summary judgment appropriate when force is objectively reasonable)
- Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626 (3d Cir. 2009) (two-year §1983 statute of limitations in Pennsylvania)
- Glover v. FDIC, 698 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 2012) (relation-back under Rule 15(c) requires fair notice)
- Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2006) (municipal liability failure-to-train standard)
- Sanford v. Stiles, 456 F.3d 298 (3d Cir. 2006) (PSTCA and the narrow ‘‘willful misconduct’’ exception)
- Santini v. Fuentes, 795 F.3d 410 (3d Cir. 2015) (assessing reasonableness from officer’s perspective)
- Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1993) (standards for appointment of counsel in civil cases)