NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09-4405
GLENDA ANDERSON; VICKI ANDERSON
v.
RYAN MESURE; RICHARD LACADRE; WARREN CORNELIUS
Vicki Anderson,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(District Court No. 4-08-cv-00121)
District Judge: The Honorable John E. Jones, III
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
September 17, 2010
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: September 20, 2010)
OPINION
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Vicki Anderson and her sister, Glenda Anderson, were issued citations charging
them with retail theft and conspiracy to commit retail theft in violation of 18 Pa. Cons.
Stat. §§ 3929 and 903. A Pennsylvania magistrate bound the matter over for trial. At the
conclusion of a non-jury trial in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, the trial
judge declared that the Commonwealth had failed to prove the charges beyond a
reasonable doubt and found both sisters not guilty. Thereafter, the Andersons filed a civil
rights action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
alleging federal and state malicious prosecution claims against the store’s loss prevention
officers, Ryan Mesure and Richard Lacadre, and the prosecuting officer, Warren
Cornelius of the Camp Hill Police Department. The defendants filed motions for
summary judgment. The District Court granted the motions, concluding, inter alia, that
the criminal proceedings were initiated with probable cause. Vicki Anderson appealed.1
In McKenna v. City of Philadelphia, 582 F.3d 447 (3d Cir. 2009), we observed that
[t]o prevail on a malicious prosecution claim under section 1983, a plaintiff
must show that: (1) the defendants initiated a criminal proceeding; (2) the
criminal proceeding ended in the 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 deprivation of liberty consistent with the concept of seizure as a
consequence of a legal proceeding.
Id. at 461 (citing Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497, 521 (3d Cir. 2003)). A claim
for malicious prosecution under Pennsylvania law requires proof of the first four elements
of the federal malicious prosecution claim. Haefner v. Burkey, 626 A.2d 519, 521 (Pa.
1993). Probable cause exists if at the time of the issuance of the citations, “the facts and
1
The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
Appellate jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a grant of
summary judgment de novo. Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497, 505 (3d
Cir. 2003).
2
circumstances within [the Officer’s] knowledge and of which [he] had reasonably
trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing” a crime
had been committed. Beck v. State of Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964).
The record before us establishes that Mesure and Lacadre provided Officer
Cornelius with written statements about their observations and actions on July 4, 2006. In
addition, Officer Cornelius viewed the video surveillance tapes from that day. The
written statements indicated that Mesure recognized the sisters on July 4 from
surveillance he had conducted a month earlier in June, when he believed, but concluded
he could not prove, they had stolen an item. Mesure noted that he and Lacadre observed
the sisters meet at the jewelry counter, where Vicki pointed to a bracelet, which Glenda
picked up and held in her hand. Mesure also noted that Glenda did not return the bracelet
to the counter. The sisters proceeded to walk to the men’s department, where they
shielded themselves among the racks of clothing. At this point, Mesure went to the
shopping floor. Meanwhile, Lacadre observed Glenda paying for another item at a cash
register. Mesure then waited outside the store to apprehend the sisters, but they appeared
to spot him, turned around, and departed in different directions before they could be
apprehended. Although Mesure looked for the bracelet in the areas of the store where he
had seen the sisters, he was unable to locate it. Based on these facts, as well as the video
surveillance tapes, Officer Cornelius had probable cause to support the citations issued to
Vicki and Glenda Anderson.
Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court did not err in granting summary
judgment. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
3