UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09-2534
ALFREDO DOMENECH; IVAN SERRANO,
APPELLANTS
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; JUDITH RUBINO, Individually and in her
professional capacity as Assistant District Attorney with Defendant City of
Philadelphia's District Attorney's Office; LEON LUBIEJEWSKI, #743
Individually and in his Professional Capacity as a Detective in Defendant City of
Philadelphia's Police Department; OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF
PHILADELPHIA; JOHN DOE DETECTIVES 1-3, Individually
and in their Professional Capacities as Detectives in Defendant City of
Philadelphia's Police Department
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 2-06-cv-01325
District Judge: The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
March 11, 2010
Before: AMBRO, SMITH, and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Filed: April 1, 2010)
JUDGMENT ORDER
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
1
In 1988, Alfredo Domenech and Ivan Serrano were convicted by a
Philadelphia jury of murdering Juan Martinez. Although their convictions were
affirmed on direct appeal, their petitions for state collateral relief succeeded, and a
new trial was granted in 2005. After the Philadelphia District Attorney decided
not to retry the case, Domenech and Serrano filed this civil rights action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. They alleged
that the City of Philadelphia and various employees of the City’s Police
Department violated their constitutional rights by, inter alia, withholding
exculpatory evidence and maliciously prosecuting them for murder. After
discovery closed, the City defendants successfully moved for summary judgment.
Domenech and Serrano appeal, arguing that the District Court erred because it
failed to apply the proper standard for ruling on a motion for summary judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
“We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s grant of summary
judgment” and “apply the same standard that the District Court should have
applied.” Shuman ex rel Shertzer v. Penn Manor Sch. Dist., 422 F.3d 141, 146 (3d
Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted). After a review of the briefs and the record,
including the District Court’s thorough Memorandum, we find no error in the
District Court’s application of Rule 56. Accordingly, it is now hereby
ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the judgment of the District Court entered April
2
23, 2009, be and the same is hereby AFFIRMED. All of the above in accordance
with the opinion of this Court. Costs taxed against the Appellants.
By the Court:
/s/ D. Brooks Smith
U.S. Circuit Judge
Date: April 1, 2010
3