Filed: Aug. 27, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-27-2007 Hess v. Chronister Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-5056 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Hess v. Chronister" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 540. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/540 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the Uni
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-27-2007 Hess v. Chronister Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-5056 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Hess v. Chronister" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 540. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/540 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the Unit..
More
Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-27-2007
Hess v. Chronister
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-5056
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Hess v. Chronister" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 540.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/540
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 06-5056
________________
WAYDE L. HESS,
Appellant
v.
JOHN H. CHRONISTER, Individually and in his
official capacity as president Judge of York
County Court of Common Pleas; GALE SMYERS,
Individually and in his official capacity as
York County Probation and Parole Officer;
MARK D. FETTERMAN, Individually and in his official
capacity as Lancaster County Assistant Attorney;
LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE;
LANCASTER COUNTY; YORK COUNTY ADULT PROBATION
DEPARTMENT; YORK COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE;
YORK COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS; YORK COUNTY
________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 03-cv-02396)
District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 3, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, MCKEE and AMBRO, Circuit Judges
(Filed August 27, 2007)
________________
OPINION
________________
PER CURIAM
Wayde L. Hess, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of
his claims against John L. Chronister, President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of
York County, and entry of summary judgment in favor of the remaining Appellees. For
the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
Appellant filed the underlying lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming as
defendants Judge Chronister, Gale Smyers, a York County Probation and Parole Officer,
Mark D. Fetterman, an Assistant District Attorney in Lancaster County, the York County
Adult Probation Department, the York County Public Defender’s Office, the York
County Clerk of Courts, and York County.1 The Magistrate Judge set out the factual
background on pages 9-13 of its March 24, 2006 Report & Recommendation. Because
we write primarily for the parties, we will not repeat that information here.
In his complaint, Appellant claimed that Appellees Chronister, Smyers and
Fetterman conspired to deprive him of his Fourth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights by holding him on a detainer without ever notifying him of the charges
against him or holding a parole revocation hearing, and that they committed the common
law torts of malicious prosecution and abuse of process. He maintained that the York
1
Appellant also named the Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office and Lancaster
County as defendants, but stipulated to their dismissal on December 8, 2005.
2
County Adult Probation Department failed to rescue, unreasonably seized, and/or falsely
imprisoned him without probable cause or procedural due process in violation of the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, that the York County Clerk of Courts deprived him
of his right of access to the courts by refusing to docket his pro se petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, and that the York County Public Defender’s Office failed to rescue him
and denied him access to the courts by refusing to represent him while he was indigent
and incarcerated in York County Prison. Finally, he alleged that York County was liable
for “ratifying and condoning [the] official policies, customs and usages” of the York
County Adult Probation Department, the York County Clerks of Courts, and the York
County Public Defender’s Office. Appellant sought compensatory and punitive damages
and injunctive relief in the form of an order that all defendants “take any actions
necessary to achieve reinstatement of plaintiff to his previous employment.”
On January 19, 2005, the District Court entered an order holding that Judge
Chronister was entitled to absolute immunity from Appellant’s claims for monetary
damages and that his claims for injunctive relief were barred by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed Appellant’s claims against Judge Chronister. The
Court denied the remaining Appellees’ motions to dismiss, holding that Appellant had
pled sufficient facts to state a claim against Smyers, the York County Adult Probation
Department, the York County Public Defender’s Office, the York County Clerk of Courts
and York County (collectively “the York County Appellees”), and that, based upon the
facts alleged by Appellant regarding the March 8, 2001 telephone conversation between
3
Fetterman and Smyers, Fetterman was not entitled to prosecutorial immunity.2
Following a period of discovery, both the York County Appellees and Fetterman
moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the District Court on November 14,
2006. The Court held that the use of a detainer to hold Appellant in continuous custody
on the basis of new criminal charges without affording him a parole revocation hearing,
or even providing him with notice of the charges against him, raised procedural due
process concerns. Nonetheless, the Court concluded that the record developed during
discovery revealed that, because the Appellees were acting pursuant to a valid detention
order issued by Judge Chronister, none of them could be deemed to have violated the
clearly established right of Appellant to notice or a hearing, and accordingly, all were
entitled to qualified or quasi-judicial immunity. In the alternative, the Court held that
2
Appellant alleged that Fetterman called Smyers on March 8 and requested that
Smyers keep Appellant incarcerated until he could be brought to trial on the arson and
related charges in Lancaster County, thereby initiating a conspiracy against Appellant.
Smyers’ notes regarding this conversation, produced during discovery, are as follows:
[R]eceived a call from Vuc Castellano of York Co Sheriff’s Dept.
Lancaster Co. Prison has called him saying that the D is available and they
are ready to release him. Do we still want him on our detainer. Attempted
to determine status of pending charges through the Lancaster COC. . . .
could not find info as to disposition or status, called Lancaster County DA’s
office. Attorney Mark Fe[tt]erman is handling the case. He reports that
there [were] rule 1100 problems and they have to release the defendant
from incarceration due to the length of time. The charges are still pending
and they have 6 months to go to bring D to trial. I advised him we will
keep our detainer in place to insure he does not make the street due to the
severity of charges and he will be able to find the D at York Co. Prison.
Advised him also of the fact we will have to remove our detainer in July
2001 at latest so they need to bring him to trial before then.
4
Appellees “lacked involvement in the alleged civil rights violations, and that the entirety
of [Appellant’s] claims relate to the decision of Judge Chronister to detain [Appellant] to
serve the duration of his one-year sentence for DUI after it was determined, with little or
no process, that [Appellant] had violated the terms of his parole.” With respect to
Appellant’s claims against the York County Clerk of Court, the District Court held that
the record contained no evidence that Appellant ever attempted to file a habeas corpus
petition pro se, and that even if he had, the Clerk of Court would have been entitled to
qualified immunity on this claim, as the Clerk would have been acting in accordance with
Rule 576 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure then in effect.3
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
both the District Court’s determination that Judge Chronister was entitled to absolute
judicial immunity, and its grant of summary judgment to the remaining Appellees, de
novo. See Figueroa v. Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435, 439 (3d Cir. 2000).
Appellant maintains that the District Court erred in concluding that all of the
Appellees were entitled to either qualified or quasi-judicial immunity in both their
individual and their official capacities. We need not reach this issue, as we conclude that
all of Appellant’s § 1983 claims regarding his detention for violation of the terms of his
parole without a hearing or notice of the charges against him are barred by Heck v.
3
At the time of Appellant’s alleged filing, Rule 576 required that the clerk refrain from
docketing or recording any filing submitted pro se by a plaintiff represented by counsel,
but instead forward any such filing to the plaintiff’s attorney. As the District Court noted,
that rule was revised on March 3, 2004 to require that such a filing be time stamped,
docketed and filed, and a copy, rather than the original, sent to the plaintiff’s attorney.
5
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a § 1983 plaintiff
may not recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional confinement if judgment in
favor of the plaintiff on the § 1983 claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his
confinement. See
id. at 486-87. Here, any success for Appellant on his claims for
monetary or injunctive relief would necessarily imply that his confinement was invalid.
See id.; see also Williams v. Consovoy,
453 F.3d 173, 177 (3d Cir. 2006) (holding that
plaintiff may not proceed with § 1983 claim, even if he is no longer in custody).
Accordingly, Appellant’s claims cannot proceed absent a showing that his detention was
previously declared invalid, such as through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Because Appellant failed to appeal Judge Chronister’s denial of his habeas petition
through the state courts, nor did he file a federal habeas petition while in state custody, he
cannot make such a showing. Accordingly, we will affirm the entry of summary
judgment in favor of Appellees on these claims. Additionally, for the reasons expressed
by the District Court, we will affirm its dismissal of all claims against Judge Chronister,
and its entry of summary judgment against the York County Public Defender’s Office and
the York County Clerk of Courts.4
4
We note that the District Court did not address Appellant’s state law claims of
malicious prosecution or abuse of process. We note, however, that both of these claims
require a favorable termination on the merits, an element which, as set forth above,
Appellant is unable to demonstrate. See McArdle v. Tronetti, 961 F.2d 1083, 1088 (3d
Cir. 1992).
6
