John Zimmerman v. Thomas Corbett, Jr.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20115
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- John Zimmerman, a legislative staffer, was charged in the ‘‘Computergate’’ grand-jury probe after evidence suggested boxes of subpoenaed campaign materials were moved and a call was placed from Zimmerman’s office phone warning HRCC of a delivery.
- Zimmerman alleged others had access to his phone and Room 414 (a cluster of offices), and that he neither moved the boxes nor placed the call.
- Prosecutors charged Zimmerman with hindering an investigation, obstruction, and related conspiracy counts; the charges were later dismissed.
- Zimmerman sued several Pennsylvania officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Pennsylvania law for malicious prosecution, alleging fabricated testimony, destroyed exculpatory evidence, and a false affidavit of probable cause.
- The district court denied defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings in part (finding qualified-immunity issues), and defendants appealed; the Third Circuit reviewed de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants initiated prosecution without probable cause | Zimmerman: lack of probable cause because many could access his phone and Room 414, so facts do not support belief he concealed evidence | Defendants: uncontested facts (call from Zimmerman’s phone line, Zimmerman usually at desk, boxes moved afterward) supplied probable cause to prosecute | Held for defendants: probable cause existed given the corroborating facts, so malicious-prosecution claim fails |
| Whether plaintiff can state § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim | Zimmerman: pleaded fabrication, destruction of evidence, and false affidavit sufficient to overcome immunity and survive 12(c) | Defendants: even accepting allegations, probable cause defeats the claim and obviates need to reach qualified immunity | Held: plaintiff cannot establish an essential element (lack of probable cause); judgment for defendants; qualified immunity need not be decided |
| Whether dismissal on the pleadings was appropriate under Rule 12(c) | Zimmerman: factual disputes preclude judgment on pleadings | Defendants: no material factual dispute on probable-cause facts alleged; judgment appropriate | Held: 12(c) judgment granted for defendants because alleged facts still support probable cause |
| Whether appellate review must address qualified immunity | Zimmerman: district court’s denial of immunity was appealable | Defendants: resolution on probable cause moots immunity question | Held: Court reversed on merits (probable cause); did not reach qualified immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (probable cause defined by facts and reasonably trustworthy information)
- Orsatti v. New Jersey State Police, 71 F.3d 480 (probable cause standard requires more than suspicion but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (post-acquittal does not render an earlier arrest invalid where probable cause existed)
- Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273 (elements of § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim)
- Johnson v. Knorr, 477 F.3d 75 (malicious-prosecution elements under § 1983)