639 F. App'x 147
3d Cir.2016Background
- On July 26, 2012 Kevin Wheeler was injured in an altercation with Chad Wheeler; Pennsylvania State Police investigated and initial assessment described an aggravated assault by Chad.
- Trooper John Strelish later took over the investigation; Wheeler alleges Strelish ignored evidence, refused to interview eyewitnesses or retrieve medical records, and threatened Wheeler for inquiring about charges.
- Both Kevin and Chad were charged in state court with assault/harassment; after a preliminary hearing Kevin’s prosecution was scheduled for trial but ultimately the prosecutor entered nolle prosequi as to Kevin when Chad invoked the Fifth Amendment.
- Kevin sued Strelish under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging malicious prosecution, false arrest (Fourth Amendment), and a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process violation; Strelish moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The district court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend (first round) and then dismissed the amended complaint; the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims; Kevin appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wheeler pleaded lack of probable cause for malicious prosecution/false arrest | Wheeler alleged Strelish pursued charges despite flawed investigation and ignored exculpatory evidence, asserting charges were not based on probable cause | Strelish argued the complaint contains only conclusory assertions and the state-court preliminary hearing and docket show probable cause existed | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plead facts plausibly showing lack of probable cause |
| Whether Wheeler's claim could proceed under Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rather than Fourth Amendment | Wheeler urged a freestanding liberty interest in personal security and well-being separate from Fourth Amendment protections | Strelish argued false arrest/malicious prosecution claims must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, not substantive due process | Dismissed — substantive due process claim fails; Fourth Amendment is the proper vehicle and plaintiff pleaded no viable alternative liberty interest |
| Whether the district court could consider state-court records on a 12(b)(6) motion | Wheeler implicitly argued the complaint alone should control dismissal analysis | Strelish relied on public records (state docket, preliminary hearing result) integral to the complaint | Court may take judicial notice of public judicial records and consider them on a motion to dismiss |
| Whether district court abused discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing federal claims | Wheeler argued dismissal of federal claims was erroneous so state claims dismissal was improper | Strelish argued 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of federal claims | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction after federal claims were dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts need not accept legal conclusions as factual allegations)
- Johnson v. Knorr, 477 F.3d 75 (3d Cir. 2007) (elements of malicious prosecution under § 1983)
- Merkle v. Upper Dublin Sch. Dist., 211 F.3d 782 (3d Cir. 2000) (probable cause may be resolved as a matter of law at dismissal stage in some cases)
- Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994) (false arrest/malicious prosecution claims are governed by specific amendments, not generalized substantive due process)
- United States v. Miknevich, 638 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 2011) (probable cause defined as a probability or substantial chance)
- Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2007) (courts may take judicial notice of public records on motion to dismiss)
- In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997) (documents integral to the complaint may be considered without converting to summary judgment)