Blaylock v. City of Philadelphia

• Decision Date: 01 October 2007
• Docket Number: No. 06-2785.,06-2785.
• Citation: 504 F.3d 405
• Parties: Andre BLAYLOCK v. The CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; Reynolds, Philadelphia Police Officer, Badge # 4268; Walker, Philadelphia Police Officer, Badge # 3730; Cujdik, Philadelphia Police Officer, Badge # 1574; Liciardello, Philadelphia Police Officer, Badge # 4383; Malkowski, Philadelphia Police Sergeant, Badge # 8832; Philadelphia Police Officer Does 1-5; Badge Numbers Unknown, Individually and in their capacity as Police Officers. Brian Reynolds, Thomas Liciardello, Jeffrey Walker, Louis Cujdik and Chester Malkowski, Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

504 F.3d 405

Andre BLAYLOCK v. The CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; Reynolds, Philadelphia Police Officer, Badge # 4268; Walker, Philadelphia Police Officer, Badge # 3730; Cujdik, Philadelphia Police Officer, Badge # 1574; Liciardello, Philadelphia Police Officer, Badge # 4383; Malkowski, Philadelphia Police Sergeant, Badge # 8832; Philadelphia Police Officer Does 1-5; Badge Numbers Unknown, Individually and in their capacity as Police Officers.

Brian Reynolds, Thomas Liciardello, Jeffrey Walker, Louis Cujdik and Chester Malkowski, Appellants.

No. 06-2785.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued June 14, 2007.

Opinion Filed: October 1, 2007.

Richard G. Tuttle (Argued), Archer & Greiner, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellants.

Michael Pileggi (Argued), Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee Andre Blaylock.

Jane L. Istvan, City of Philadelphia Law Department, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee City of Philadelphia.

Before: McKEE, STAPLETON and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge.

This interlocutory appeal arises out of a case in which Andre Blaylock sued five officers of the Philadelphia Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging false arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. At the close of discovery, the officers moved for summary judgment, arguing, inter alia, that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The District Court denied that motion, and the officers now appeal.

We lack the benefit of the District Court's views as to what facts are subject to genuine dispute with respect to the claims of excessive force and malicious prosecution, and we will therefore vacate the District Court's order denying summary judgment on those claims and remand pursuant to the supervisory rule we announced in Forbes v. Lower Merion Twp., 313 F.3d 144 (3d Cir.2002). We will dismiss the portion of the officers' appeal relating to the false arrest claim for want of jurisdiction under Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995).

I

The parties to this case agree that on October 22, 2003, defendant police officers Brian Reynolds, Jeffrey Walker, and Thomas Liciardello arrested Andre Blaylock while he was sitting on the steps of 522 North 38th Street in Philadelphia. He was held on various drug charges until he was released on February 2, 2005, and the charges against him were dropped. The parties dispute how his arrest and incarceration came about.

A

According to Andre Blaylock, on October 7, 2003, Reynolds received a tip from an informant to the effect that Dana and Omar Blaylock (relatives of Andre) were selling drugs near the 500 block of North 38th Street in Philadelphia, and were storing drugs at 522 North 38th Street and at two other addresses in the same area.¹ After receiving the informant's tip, Reynolds performed a "record check" on Omar and Dana, which connected them to the latter two addresses and revealed that both had several prior arrests. Reynolds shared that information with Walker. The parties agree that Omar was incarcerated during all times relevant to this case. Walker and Officer Louis Cujdik set up surveillance that afternoon and observed Dana and another black male participate in drug transactions at 522 North 38th Street. That same day, Cujdik met with a confidential informant and arranged a controlled narcotics purchase, in which the informant gave prerecorded buy money to Dana in exchange for two plastic bags of crack cocaine provided by Dana's accomplice.

On October 21, 2003, Walker and Cujdik arranged for another controlled purchase at the same location, and observed Dana and his accomplice performing additional drug transactions. Walker and Cujdik set up another controlled buy that afternoon. After obtaining police photographs of Dana and Omar Blaylock to confirm their identities as the men he observed selling drugs, Walker filled out an affidavit of probable cause, identifying Dana and Omar as the people he had observed, and obtained a search warrant for 522 North 38th Street and for the other two addresses the informant identified in the initial tip.

On October 22, 2003, Andre Blaylock was sitting on the steps of 522 North 38th Street, and Officers Reynolds, Walker, and Liciardello arrested him. According to Andre, the officers handcuffed him, threw him on the ground, and beat him, despite the fact that he did not resist, possessed no contraband, and was not the person the police had observed selling drugs with Dana. After complaining repeatedly of his injuries, Andre was taken to the hospital. After the arrest, the officers filled out an Investigation Report, which is nearly identical to the affidavit of probable cause, but substitutes Andre's name for Omar's throughout the description of what the officers observed prior to arresting Andre.

B

The officers largely agree with Andre's allegations, but with a few important exceptions. First, according to them, Andre was the person they observed selling drugs with Dana. The officers believed that that person was Omar because of the informant's tip and because Andre resembled the police photograph of Omar. Although Officer Reynolds's "record check" showed that Omar was incarcerated at the time, he insists that he believed that the record check had given him erroneous information.

Second, the officers dispute Andre's allegation that they used excessive force in arresting him. According to them, they ordered Andre to lie on the ground while they applied handcuffs, Andre complied, and no significant force was used.

Finally, although Andre denies that he possessed any contraband or that the officers confiscated any contraband from him, the officers assert that when Andre was in detention, they searched him and seized crack cocaine from his waistband, and that the charges against him were dismissed only because the crack was suppressed.

C

At the close of discovery, the officers moved for summary judgment on all of Andre's claims on the basis of qualified immunity. The District Court heard argument on the motion and denied it on May 18, 2006. The officers filed a notice of appeal the following day and, on June 6, the District Court filed a memorandum in support of its order, explaining its denial of qualified immunity on the false arrest claim. Blaylock v. Reynolds, No. 05-1649, 2006 WL 1582308 (E.D.Pa. June 6, 2006).

II

Our jurisdiction to hear this appeal depends on whether we may treat the District Court's order as a "final decision of the district court[]" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Under the collateral order doctrine, an interlocutory order of a district court may be treated as a "final decision" if it: "(1) conclusively determine[s] the disputed question, (2) resolve[s] an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3)[is] effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment." Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 310, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995) (quoting Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144, 113 S.Ct. 684, 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978))); see also Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526-28, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (same).²

A district court's order denying a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds generally meets the first and third criteria, because qualified immunity "is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability," and is therefore "effectively lost if a case is permitted to go to trial." Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001); Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526-27, 105 S.Ct. 2806 (same). The more difficult question is whether and to what extent the appealed order resolves an important issue "completely separate from the merits of the action."

In an interlocutory appeal of this type, we lack jurisdiction to review questions of "evidence sufficiency." Johnson, 515 U.S. at 313, 115 S.Ct. 2151. That is, if a district court determines "that there is sufficient record evidence to support a set of facts under which there would be no immunity," we must accept that set of facts on interlocutory review. Schieber v. City of Phila., 320 F.3d 409, 415 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Johnson); see also Forbes v. Twp. of Lower Merion, 313 F.3d 144, 147-48 (3d Cir.2002) ("When a defendant argues that a trial judge erred in denying a qualified-immunity summary-judgment motion because the judge was mistaken as to the facts that are subject to genuine dispute, the defendant's argument cannot be entertained under the collateral-order doctrine but must instead await an appeal at the conclusion of the case."). Once we accept the set of facts that the District Court found to be sufficiently supported, however, we may review the District Court's conclusion that the defendants would not be immune from liability if those facts were proved at trial. See Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 313, 116 S.Ct. 834, 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996) ("Johnson permits petitioner to claim on appeal that all of the conduct which the District Court deemed sufficiently supported for purposes of summary judgment met the [qualified immunity] standard of `objective reasonableness.'"); Rivas v. City of Passaic, 365 F.3d 181, 192 (3d Cir.2004) ("[I]f a defendant in a constitutional tort case moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and the district court denies the motion, we lack jurisdiction to consider whether the district court correctly identified the set of facts that the summary judgment record is sufficient to prove; but we possess jurisdiction to review whether the set of facts identified by the district court is sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.") (quoting Ziccardi v. City of Philadelphia, 288 F.3d 57, 61 (3d Cir.2002)).

Thus, for each of Andre Blaylock's claims,³ our jurisdiction to review the...