J. Considine, Jr. v. Jonathan Jagodinski , 646 F. App'x 283 ( 2016 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 15-2184
__________
J. MICHAEL CONSIDINE, JR.,
Appellant
v.
JONATHAN J. JAGODINSKI,
Officer, Radnor Township Police Department
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Civ. No. 2-13-cv-07263)
District Judge: Edward G. Smith
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 8, 2016
BEFORE: FUENTES, KRAUSE, and RENDELL Circuit Judges
(Filed April 14, 2016)
__________
OPINION*
__________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Fuentes, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff, J. Michael Considine, brought this action seeking compensatory and
declaratory relief against the defendant, Jonathan Jagodinski, a Radnor Township police
officer, for wrongfully citing him for being a defiant trespasser on the premises of the
Valley Forge Military Academy (the “academy”). Considine asserted claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his First Amendment rights and state and federal law
claims for malicious prosecution.1 Considine also sought a declaratory judgment that his
First Amendment rights were violated. The parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. The District Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and
denied Considine’s motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, we will
affirm.
I. BACKGROUND2
Plaintiff, J. Michael Considine, is a lawyer who represented a former Valley Forge
Military Academy student in a lawsuit based upon allegations of hazing that took place at
the academy. As part of an investigation of his client’s claims, Considine went to the
academy to interview students. The school has a policy of requiring visitors to register in
their central office before entering the premises. The policy is also clearly articulated on
1
While Appellant avers before us that he did not bring a federal malicious prosecution
claim in the first instance, Reply B. 7, 18, he did make such arguments in his response in
opposition to Appellee’s motion for summary judgment and at oral argument before the
District Court. App. 3 n.7. We will address the federal malicious prosecution claim for
the sake of completeness.
2
The District Court had jurisdiction over Considine’s claims under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 and to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
signs located on academy grounds, though Considine claims that he never saw the signs
and was never told to leave by any school officials.
Considine entered the premises and asked the first student that he saw if he knew a
student named Marcos Settinieri. As a matter of luck, that student was Settinieri.
Settinieri invited Considine into his dormitory room and agreed to answer questions
about the alleged hazing incident. Considine spoke with Settinieri and another student
named Josh Bernstein, received information from them, and gave Settinieri his business
card. Considine then left the academy.
Soon after, the academy was made aware of Considine’s visit. As a result, the
academy contacted police, claiming that Considine had trespassed on private property.
The academy also provided the police with Considine’s name, address, and telephone
number. Based upon the academy’s complaint, Defendant, Radnor Township Police
Officer Jonathan Jagodinski, issued Considine a citation for trespassing on the property in
violation of 18 Pa. Const. Stat. § 3503(b)(1)(iv). Considine was never arrested or
otherwise taken into police custody. He appeared at a magistrate’s hearing on the citation
in state court, where the magistrate found Considine guilty of defiant trespass. Considine
appealed this decision to the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, which reversed
his conviction.
Based on all of these events, Considine filed a Complaint in federal court, which
he later amended, asserting claims against Officer Jagodinski for (1) a violation of his
First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (2) declaratory judgment under 28
U.S.C. § 2201 for the violation of his First Amendment rights, and (3) malicious
3
prosecution.3 After Jagodinski answered the Amended Complaint, both parties filed
motions for summary judgment.
The District Court granted Jagodinski’s motion for summary judgment and denied
Considine’s cross-motion for summary judgment. In particular, the District Court found
that (1) Considine could not establish a First Amendment violation because he was on
private property, and therefore his speech was not entitled to First Amendment
protection; (2) that Considine had not established a claim for malicious prosecution under
federal law because he had not suffered a deprivation of liberty consistent with the
concept of seizure as a consequence of a legal proceeding; and (3) Considine failed to
establish a claim for malicious prosecution under Pennsylvania law because Jagodinski
had probable cause to issue the citation. This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
Considine first argues that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment
to Defendant on his First Amendment claim.4 He contends that he was entitled to relief
on this claim because he had a First Amendment right to enter the academy grounds and
interview witnesses in support of his client’s litigation. We disagree.
3
In particular, the Amended Complaint alleges that the citation was “filed in retaliation
for Plaintiff’s performing a legitimate, necessary service of obtaining information from
willing speakers in a legal investigation, a significant function of an attorney, and writing
a letter to VFMA, and to intimidate him from not investigating further into incidents
involving [his client] or others or matters or to speak to witnesses on the VFMA campus
in any matters involving VFMA.” (Am. Compl. at ¶ 40.)
4
We exercise plenary review over the grant of summary judgment and review the facts in
the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered. Pi
Lambda Phi Fraternity, Inc. v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 229 F.3d 435, 441 n.3 (3d. Cir. 2000).
4
To state a claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, a plaintiff
must allege “(1) constitutionally protected conduct, (2) retaliatory action sufficient to
deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his constitutional rights, and (3) a
causal link between the constitutionally protected conduct and the retaliatory action.”5
“[T]he constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee only against
abridgment by government, federal or state,” not private parties. 6 Moreover, “[t]he right
to exclude others is a fundamental element of private property ownership, and the First
Amendment does not create an absolute right to trespass.”7
As the District Court correctly noted, Considine admits that the academy was a
private, fenced-in campus and that no one invited him to enter the premises. He
nonetheless argues that there was no need to obtain permission to enter. And despite
claiming that he did not see any signs posted, he admits that there were at least two such
signs posted on the grounds. Contrary to his contentions, there is simply no dispute that
(1) the academy was a private, nongovernmental institution; (2) the academy had a strict
visitor policy prohibiting visitors from being on campus without proper authorization;
and, (3) Considine had not registered upon his arrival and thus did not have permission to
be on the academy grounds. In short, the District Court properly concluded that
Considine had no First Amendment right to interview witnesses anywhere that he
5
Thomas v. Independence Twp., 463 F.3d 285, 296 (3d Cir. 2006).
6
Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 513 (1976).
7
Armes v. City of Philadelphia, 706 F. Supp. 1156, 1164 (E.D. Pa. 1989), aff’d sub nom.,
Armes v. Doe, 897 F.2d 520 (3d Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).
5
pleased, especially where, as here, the private property was not open to unregistered
visitors. For the same reasons, we find no merit in Considine’s additional claim seeking
declaratory judgment for a violation of his First Amendment rights. And, though we do
not find it crucial to the outcome of this appeal, we agree with Jagodinski’s additional
point that the school also had a perfectly legitimate interest in protecting the students
from outside trespassers by requiring them to comply with the visitor policy. We
therefore conclude that Considine has not established that his conduct was
constitutionally protected under the First Amendment, and his retaliation claim therefore
fails.
Considine also argues that the District Court erred by granting Defendant’s motion
for summary judgment as to Considine’s malicious prosecution claims under both state
and federal law. As to Considine’s state law malicious prosecution claim, he contends
that the District Court incorrectly determined that Jagodinski had probable cause to issue
the trespass citation.8 “Probable cause to arrest exists when the information within the
arresting officer’s knowledge at the time of the arrest is sufficient to warrant a reasonable
8
To succeed in a claim of malicious prosecution under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff must
show: “(1) that the underlying proceedings terminated favorably to the [plaintiff]; (2) that
the defendant caused those proceedings to be instituted without probable cause; and (3)
malice.” Shaffer v. Stewart, 473 A.2d 1017, 1020 (1984) (alteration in original) (quoting
Junod v. Bader, 458 A.2d 251, 253 (1983)); see also 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8351.
Moreover, to succeed on a malicious prosecution claim under federal law, a plaintiff must
show that “(1) the defendants initiated criminal proceeding; (2) the criminal proceeding
ended in plaintiff’s favor; (3) the proceeding was initiated without probable cause; (4) the
defendants acted maliciously or for a purpose other than bringing the plaintiff to justice;
and (5) the plaintiff suffered a deprivation of liberty consistent with the concept of
seizure as a consequence of a legal proceeding.” DiBella v. Borough of Beachwood, 407
F.3d 599, 601 (3d Cir. 2005).
6
law enforcement officer to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the
person to be arrested.”9 It “is a fluid concept—turning on the assessment of probabilities
in particular factual contexts—not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal
rules.”10
Here, the District Court correctly determined that Considine’s malicious
prosecution claim under Pennsylvania law fails because Jagodinski had probable cause to
issue the citation for trespass. There is simply no dispute that: (1) Defendant spoke with
the students that claimed to have been interviewed by Considine; (2) that Defendant
knew that the academy was a private institution; (3) that an academy representative told
Defendant that notice was posted on school grounds explaining the academy’s visitor
policy; (4) that Defendant believed that any visitor who had not registered with security
was in violation of the policy; and (5) that Defendant also believed that the location of the
signs at the main entrances of the academy were likely to come to the attention of a
visitor. We view these uncontroverted facts as establishing that Defendant had probable
cause to believe that Considine had unlawfully trespassed on the academy grounds. We
therefore find no error in the District Court’s conclusion that Defendants were entitled to
summary judgment as to Considine’s state law malicious prosecution claim.
Furthermore, because we conclude that probable cause existed to support the
issuance of the trespass citation, we discern no error in the District Court’s grant of
9
Paff v. Kaltenbach, 204 F.3d 425, 436 (3d Cir. 2000).
10
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232 (1983).
7
summary judgment in Defendant’s favor as to Considine’s federal malicious prosecution
claim.11 Moreover, we conclude that Considine presents no evidence to support his
allegation that he suffered a seizure under the Fourth Amendment to support his federal
claim. In fact, all of the evidence showed that Considine was never arrested, was never
otherwise placed into custody, and was only burdened by having to appear in the
magistrate court’s hearing and the subsequent Court of Common pleas proceeding.12 It is
true that various non-custodial hearings might, under certain circumstances, suffice to
demonstrate a Fourth Amendment seizure that is adequate to prove a federal malicious
prosecution claim. However, we conclude that the slight inconveniences that Considine
faced simply do not rise to the level of such “onerous types of pretrial, non-custodial
restrictions” to support such a finding.13
III. CONCLUSION
For substantially the same reasons set forth in the District Court’s thorough and
persuasive opinion, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.14
11
DiBella, 407 F.3d at 601.
12
See DiBella, 407 F.3d at 601 (concluding that attendance at trial does not qualify as a
Fourth Amendment seizure).
13
Id. at 601.
14
Because we conclude that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment as to all of
Considine’s claims, we need not address Defendant’s additional, alternative argument
that he was entitled to qualified immunity.
8