Harvey v. Plains Township Police Department
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6236
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Elizabeth Harvey brought a §1983 claim against Officer Dombroski and others for an allegedly unconstitutional search during a private repossession of her property.
- Dombroski was dispatched to maintain peace; the extent of his active participation vs. neutrality was contested.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to all defendants; we reversed as to Dombroski in Harvey I, finding a material factual dispute as to state-action.
- On remand, the District Court instructed a two-day trial and limited the verdict form to whether Dombroski ordered the landlord to open Harvey's door.
- The jury answered No to the single question, and Harvey appealed arguing the form and instructions were error.
- The Third Circuit vacates the District Court decision and remands for a new trial, holding the state-action inquiry requires the totality of circumstances, not a single factual issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by limiting the state-action inquiry to a single fact. | Harvey | Dombroski | Error; must assess totality of circumstances. |
| Whether the jury instructions and verdict form properly guided the state-action analysis. | Harvey | Dombroski | Error; form and instructions were prejudicial and fundamental. |
| Whether Dombroski's actions amounted to acting under color of state law under the totality-of-circumstances test. | Harvey | Dombroski | A reasonable jury could find active involvement; duty to evaluate totality. |
| Whether the district court's errors require a new trial on the §1983 claim. | Harvey | Dombroski | Remand for new trial; vacate judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott v. Latshaw, 164 F.3d 141 (3d Cir.1998) (state action requires power exercised under state law)
- Marcus v. McCollum, 394 F.3d 813 (10th Cir.2004) (affirmative aid can establish state action)
- Howerton v. Gabica, 708 F.2d 380 (9th Cir.1983) (totality of circumstances in evaluating state action)
- Hurley v. Atlantic City Police Dept., 174 F.3d 95 (3d Cir.1999) (instructional errors can render damages determinations improper)
- Harvey I, 421 F.3d 185 (3d Cir.2005) (reversed district court on readiness for color-of-state-law issue)
- Limbach Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n, 949 F.2d 1241 (3d Cir.1991) (jury instructions must convey correct legal standard)
- Advanced Med., Inc. v. Arden Med. Sys., Inc., 955 F.2d 188 (3d Cir.1992) (harmless error standard for erroneous instructions)
- Beardshall v. Minuteman Press Int'l, 664 F.2d 23 (3d Cir.1981) (proof standard for jury instructions)
- Choy v. Bouchelle, 436 F.2d 319 (3d Cir.1970) (misinstruction can constitute miscarriage of justice)
- Price-Cornelison v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir.2008) (factors for evaluating state action include multiple intervening steps)