Hertzke v. Riley, Civ. A. No. 88-0939.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
Writing for the CourtDuBOIS
Citation715 F. Supp. 117
PartiesGeorge HERTZKE, et al. v. John RILEY, et al.
Decision Date08 May 1989
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 88-0939.

715 F. Supp. 117

George HERTZKE, et al.
v.
John RILEY, et al.

Civ. A. No. 88-0939.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

May 8, 1989.


715 F. Supp. 118

Richard J. Orloski, Orloski & Hinga, Allentown, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Denise A. Kuhn, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Ralph Marinetti.

Edward T. Gillis and Cynthia J. Giles, Asst. U.S. Attys., E.D.Pa., Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants John Riley, John Doherty, Donn Jerre Miller, Robert Lumsden, John Morgan and U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DuBOIS, District Judge.

Presently before me is the Motion of the defendants, John Riley, John Doherty, Donn Jerre Miller, Robert Lumsden, John Morgan and the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter the "Federal Defendants"), to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and the Motion of the defendant, Ralph Marinetti (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "State Defendant"), for Summary Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Because the Court has been presented with evidence outside the pleadings which I have not excluded, the Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss shall be treated as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. See Carter v. Stanton, 405 U.S. 669, 92 S.Ct. 1232, 31 L.Ed.2d 569 (1972). This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346.

In this suit plaintiffs allege that the actions of the defendants in obtaining the cooperation of plaintiff, Sharon Hertzke, in an investigation of illegal drug related activities and the placement of the three plaintiffs in the Federal Witness Protection Program ("FWPP") resulted in a deprivation of plaintiffs' constitutional right to liberty under the Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The defendants' Motions will be granted and judgment will be entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs on the ground that plaintiffs have failed to allege a constitutional violation.

For the purposes of these Motions, "the evidence of the non-movants is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in their favor." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2513, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). With that directive in mind, the facts of this case may be summarized as follows:

In late 1982, plaintiff Sharon Hertzke contacted the Whitehall Township police with information concerning illegal drug related activities. Ms. Hertzke learned of this information through her sister, who, at various times, resided with Ms. Hertzke,

715 F. Supp. 119
her husband and her son. There is no evidence that Ms. Hertzke had any criminal record or that she had engaged in any criminal enterprise

The Whitehall Township police referred the case to the Pennsylvania State Police Strike Force. In January of 1983, Trooper James McAndrew of the Strike Force interviewed Ms. Hertzke. In early February of 1983, Ms. Hertzke met with Trooper McAndrew's superior, defendant Corporal Ralph Marinetti. Corporal Marinetti asked Ms. Hertzke to become a confidential informant and to participate in the investigation by making a "chemical drop" — delivering a chemical used to manufacture an illegal drug. On February 4, 1983, Ms. Hertzke signed papers consenting to a body wiring. While Ms. Hertzke was in contact with the Strike Force, various officers spoke to her about meeting with people from the United States Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") and told her that people from the DEA would "take care of her."

A few days prior to February 17, 1983, Ms. Hertzke met with Pennsylvania State Police Strike Force Officers McAndrew and Marchetti to discuss the FWPP. On February 17, 1983, Ms. Hertzke and her husband, plaintiff George Hertzke, met with defendants, John Doherty, an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and DEA Agents Donn Jerre Miller, Robert Lumsden, and John Morgan, and Officer Marinetti. Officers McAndrew and Marchetti were also in attendance. At this meeting Agents Lumsden and Morgan explained the FWPP to plaintiffs Sharon and George Hertzke. Agents Lumsden and Morgan also promised the plaintiffs that rather than entering the FWPP, the plaintiffs could be relocated anywhere they wanted and given a lump sum of money. The amount of money was never disclosed to the plaintiffs.

Shortly before the arrests of the subjects of the investigation were made on April 18, 1983, Agent Lumsden informed Ms. Hertzke that no money was left for the lump sum option. In May of 1983, Ms. Hertzke again discussed the FWPP, and she and her family agreed to participate in the program. Thereafter, the plaintiffs were placed in a safe house in the Poconos for two months until they entered the program on June 29, 1983. The plaintiffs have remained in the FWPP since that time.

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving parties are entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Summary judgment is mandatory when "a party ... fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an essential element to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

Plaintiffs contend that the broken promise by the DEA agents — to give the Hertzkes a lump sum of money and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Walker-Serrano by Walker v. Leonard, No. 3:99-CV-0716.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • October 9, 2001
    ...existence of an element essential to that party's case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Hertzke v. Riley, 715 F.Supp. 117, 119 (1989). Under this standard, Magistrate Judge Blewitt has recommended that the court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment wi......
  • Hernandez v. City of Pomona, No. B087779
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 8, 1996
    ...United States Supreme Court indicates that there are limits to absolute prosecutorial immunity. Also see Hertzke v. Riley (E.D.Pa.1989) 715 F.Supp. 117,...
  • J.S. v. T'Kach, Docket No. 11–1287–pr.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 10, 2013
    ...An individual's participation in the Program is voluntary, and an individual who joins is free to leave at any time. Hertzke v. Riley, 715 F.Supp. 117, 120 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd,891 F.2d 281 (3d Cir.1989). Rule 2b of the written agreement provides that contacting or attempting to contact unautho......
  • J.S. v. T'Kach, Docket No. 11-1287-pr
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • April 10, 2013
    ...individual'sPage 4participation in the Program is voluntary, and an individual who joins is free to leave at any time. Hertzke v. Riley, 715 F. Supp. 117, 120 (E.D. Pa.), aff'd, 891 F.2d 281 (3d Cir. 1989). Rule 2b of the written agreement provides that contacting or attempting to contact u......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Walker-Serrano by Walker v. Leonard, No. 3:99-CV-0716.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • October 9, 2001
    ...existence of an element essential to that party's case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Hertzke v. Riley, 715 F.Supp. 117, 119 (1989). Under this standard, Magistrate Judge Blewitt has recommended that the court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment wi......
  • Hernandez v. City of Pomona, No. B087779
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 8, 1996
    ...United States Supreme Court indicates that there are limits to absolute prosecutorial immunity. Also see Hertzke v. Riley (E.D.Pa.1989) 715 F.Supp. 117,...
  • J.S. v. T'Kach, Docket No. 11–1287–pr.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 10, 2013
    ...An individual's participation in the Program is voluntary, and an individual who joins is free to leave at any time. Hertzke v. Riley, 715 F.Supp. 117, 120 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd,891 F.2d 281 (3d Cir.1989). Rule 2b of the written agreement provides that contacting or attempting to contact unautho......
  • J.S. v. T'Kach, Docket No. 11-1287-pr
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • April 10, 2013
    ...individual'sPage 4participation in the Program is voluntary, and an individual who joins is free to leave at any time. Hertzke v. Riley, 715 F. Supp. 117, 120 (E.D. Pa.), aff'd, 891 F.2d 281 (3d Cir. 1989). Rule 2b of the written agreement provides that contacting or attempting to contact u......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT