Jeanne Zaloga v. Borough of Moosic
841 F.3d 170
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Dr. Edward Zaloga (and his company Correctional Care, Inc.) provided medical services to Lackawanna County Prison and publicly opposed Borough officials, including Joseph Mercatili.
- Zaloga accused Mercatili of using political influence to block renewal of Correctional Care’s county contract after Zaloga opposed Mercatili’s reelection and related local disputes.
- Multiple Prison Board members reported that Mercatili (and then-mayor Segilia) pressured them to vote against the contract renewal, sometimes linking board support to political support for the members’ campaigns.
- Despite the alleged pressure, the County unanimously renewed Correctional Care’s contract (and renewed it again later), so no adverse action succeeded.
- Zaloga sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation, substantive due process, and conspiracy; the District Court granted summary judgment for all defendants except Mercatili and denied Mercatili qualified immunity.
- The Third Circuit reversed as to Mercatili, holding qualified immunity applies because the law was not clearly established that Mercatili’s alleged conduct violated the Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mercatili’s alleged political pressure on third-party board members constituted unconstitutional retaliation under the First Amendment | Zaloga: Mercatili’s efforts to block the contract renewal were retaliatory and violated Zaloga’s First Amendment rights | Mercatili: His conduct was political speech/pressure and not clearly unlawful; qualified immunity protects him | Held for Mercatili: the right was not "clearly established" in the specific context, so qualified immunity applies |
| Whether precedent clearly establishes liability for an official who pressures a third party to take adverse action | Zaloga: existing First Amendment retaliation law covers such pressure | Mercatili: Precedent (McLaughlin, R.C. Maxwell) requires coercion or particularly virulent conduct; mere pressure/influence is insufficient | Held for Mercatili: precedent leaves room for reasonable disagreement; coercion threshold not met |
| Whether an official can be personally liable if he only pressured others but did not make the final decision | Zaloga: pressure that causes adverse action can create liability | Mercatili: Personal liability is uncertain where the official was not the final decisionmaker | Held for Mercatili: law unsettled; circuits differ and no clearly established rule would have put Mercatili on notice |
| Whether the district court properly denied summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds | Zaloga: disputed factual issues preclude summary judgment | Mercatili: even accepting facts, qualified immunity applies as the constitutional right was not clearly established | Held: Reversed — summary judgment should be entered for Mercatili on qualified immunity grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (government officials immune unless they violate clearly established rights)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (two-step qualified immunity framework)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may address either prong of qualified immunity first)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (clearly established right must be particularized; general anti-retaliation rule insufficient)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (high standard for clearly established law)
- McLaughlin v. Watson, 271 F.3d 566 (3d Cir.) (pressure on third parties must be coercive or of particularly virulent character to defeat immunity)
- R.C. Maxwell Co. v. Borough of New Hope, 735 F.2d 85 (3d Cir.) (urging a third party to act is not necessarily coercion for First Amendment liability)