Victor Rodriguez v. Samuel Salus, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 5. ALD-078. Rodriguez's motion to strike is denied.

Case: 15-2142

Document: 003112155269

Page: 1

ALD-078

Date Filed: 12/15/2015

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 15-2142
___________
VICTOR MANUEL RODRIGUEZ,
on his own behalf,
Appellant
v.

SAMUEL SALUS, Judge, Court of Common Pleas for Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania, Norristown, PA; JOSEPH P. MASCARO, District Attorney for
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania; MARY FITIPALDI, District Attorney for
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Norristown, PA; MARY MACNEILL KILLINGER,
District Attorney for Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Norristown, PA;
RICHARD J. HODGSON, Judge, Court of Common Pleas, Norristown, PA;
WALTER DUNSMORE, Attorney; XAVIER P. HAYDEN, Attorney;
FRANCIS M. WALSH, Attorney, Norristown PA; JAMES T. OWENS,
Attorney, West Chester, PA; FIDEL BALAN, Police Officer, City of New York;
ANGEL HERNANDEZ, Citizen, City of Norristown, PA; PANEL OF SUPERIOR
COURT ON SEPTEMBER 24TH, 1999, DECEMBER 31ST 2007; PANEL OF
SUPREME COURT ON MAY 17TH 2000, JULY 10TH 2008 AND MAY 31ST 2012,
All, Individually, Officially and Collectively
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 2-14-cv-06637)
District Judge: Honorable Joel H. Slomsky
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
December 10, 2015
Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Filed: December 15, 2015)

Case: 15-2142

Document: 003112155269

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/15/2015

_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Victor Manuel Rodriguez, a state prisoner, appeals an order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing as legally frivolous his
civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We will summarily affirm.
In 1998, the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania,
sentenced Rodriguez to life imprisonment without parole following his conviction for
first degree murder and criminal conspiracy. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed
the judgment of sentence on direct appeal, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
subsequently denied review. Rodriguez’s petition for relief under Pennsylvania’s Post
Conviction Relief Act and his habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 were
unsuccessful.
In November 2015, Rodriguez filed a complaint under § 1983, naming numerous
individuals involved in his criminal case and appeals, including judges, prosecutors,
defense attorneys, a police officer who testified at trial, and the brother of his codefendant, who allegedly threatened witnesses in an effort to have them inculpate
Rodriguez. In the complaint, Rodriguez essentially alleged that those defendants

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
2

Case: 15-2142

Document: 003112155269

Page: 3

Date Filed: 12/15/2015

conspired to convict him of a crime that he did not commit and attempted to thwart his
ability to overturn his conviction. As relief, Rodriguez sought immediate release,
monetary damages, and an injunction prohibiting his future incarceration.1 The District
Court dismissed the case as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),
concluding that Rodriguez’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994).2 Rodriguez filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District Court denied.
Rodriguez appealed.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and exercise
plenary review over the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint as frivolous. See
Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1990). We construe the complaint liberally,
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and may affirm on any basis supported by
the record. Fairview Twp. v. EPA, 773 F.2d 517, 525 n.15 (3d Cir. 1985).

1

Rodriguez also sought the initiation of criminal charges against the defendants under 18
U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. The District Court properly rejected this claim because there is
no federal right to require the government to initiate criminal proceedings. See Linda
R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); United States v. Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171,
173-74 (3d Cir. 1973). There is also no merit to Rodriguez’s suggestion that amendments
to Pennsylvania’s murder statute have no force or effect because they were not “carried
over as required under legislative mandates.”
The District Court also properly noted “several other problems” with Rodriguez’s
complaint: the judges were immune from claims based on acts that they took in their
judicial capacity, see Figueroa v. Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435, 440-41 (3d Cir. 2000);
immunity barred damage claims against the prosecutors for their actions in initiating,
presenting, and advocating the Commonwealth’s case; and a police officer was immune
from claims based on his trial testimony, see Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 326
(1983).
2

3

Case: 15-2142

Document: 003112155269

Page: 4

Date Filed: 12/15/2015

After considering the record below, we agree that Rodriguez’s claims are not
cognizable in a § 1983 action. Under Heck, “when a state prisoner seeks damages in a
§ 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff
would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the
complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or
sentence has already been invalidated.” 512 U.S. at 487. In Edwards v. Balisok, 520
U.S. 641 (1997), the Court extended Heck and found a claim for declaratory relief not
cognizable under § 1983 because it would “necessarily imply the invalidity of the
punishment imposed.” Id. at 648. Heck and Balisok foreclose § 1983 claims only in a
“narrow subset of actions,” where the deprivation of rights is such that it necessarily
affects the fact or length of detention. Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir.
2002). “[W]henever the challenge ultimately attacks the ‘core of habeas’ -- the validity
of the continued conviction or the fact or length of the sentence -- a challenge, however
denominated and regardless of the relief sought, must be brought by way of habeas
corpus petition. Conversely, when the challenge is to a condition of confinement such
that a finding in plaintiff’s favor would not alter his sentence or undo his conviction, an
action under § 1983 is appropriate.” Id. at 542.
To the extent that Rodriguez seeks to challenge his conviction based on alleged
violations of his constitutional rights at trial and on appeal, those claims must be raised in
a habeas petition. Id.; Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005) (stating that claims
that, if successful, would “spell speedier release . . . lie[] at the core of habeas corpus.”
4

Case: 15-2142

Document: 003112155269

Page: 5

Date Filed: 12/15/2015

(internal quotation and citation omitted)). To the extent that Rodriguez seeks damages
and declaratory relief based on alleged constitutional violations related to his conviction,
his claims are barred by Heck. Success on those claims would necessarily imply the
invalidity of his conviction, which has not been overturned or invalidated.3 Heck, 512
U.S. at 487.
Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order dismissing
Rodriguez’s complaint because the appeal presents no substantial question.4

3

Because it is apparent that amendment of the complaint would have been futile, there
was no need for the District Court to provide Rodriguez with leave to amend before
dismissing his complaint. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 236 (3d
Cir. 2008).
Rodriguez’s motion to strike the appearance of the attorney representing the
Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office is denied.
4

5