ALD-219 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-4136
___________
WILLIAM JAMES WALKER, JR.,
Appellant
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA;
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE;
DEFENDER ASSOCIATION OF PHILADELPHIA;
*R. SETH WILLIAMS, ESQ.; ELLEN GREENLEE;
DENNIS KELLY; JOHN MADDEN, ESQ.
NICOLE TAYLOR, ESQ.
*Amended pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2)
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-02071)
District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin
____________________________________
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
June 23, 2011
Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN AND VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed July 8, 2011)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Walker, a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s dismissal
of his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). For the reasons stated below, we will
summarily affirm.
I.
Walker filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985
against the City of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia County District Attorney’s Office, the
District Attorney, the Defender Association of Philadelphia, and several individual public
defenders. He alleged that these defendants conspired to have him plead guilty to
criminal charges despite being aware of evidence he claims would prove his innocence.
He sought both monetary relief and the release of all exculpatory evidence.
The District Court granted Walker’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and later
dismissed his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
II.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may
summarily affirm if the appeal presents no substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4;
I.O.P. 10.6.
III.
We agree with the District Court’s determination that Walker’s civil rights claim is
without merit. To the extent Walker brought his claim pursuant to § 1985(3), the District
2
Court correctly dismissed. Walker did not allege that any of the defendants’ actions were
motivated by invidious class-based discriminatory animus, Farber v. City of Paterson,
440 F.3d 131, 134-43 (3d Cir. 2006), and he failed to state a cognizable claim under any
other subsection of § 1985.
To the extent Walker sought relief under § 1983, dismissal was likewise correct as
none of the defendants is liable under that provision. The City of Philadelphia is not
subject to liability in a civil rights action absent a showing that unlawful actions were
taken as a result of an approved municipal or governmental custom. Monell v. New York
Dep’t of Social Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). The District Attorney’s Office and
the District Attorney himself have absolute immunity from liability for actions related to
their official duties. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 410 (1976). The Defender
Association of Philadelphia and the individual public defenders are not liable under §
1983. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981) (public defenders not liable
because they were not acting under color of state law).
We also agree with the District Court that Walker’s conspiracy claim does not
appear to be based in fact, but merely upon his own suspicion and speculation. Young v.
Kann, 926 F.2d 1396, 1405 n.16 (3d Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, the District Court did not err in dismissing his complaint as legally
3
frivolous.1 Id. We are satisfied that any amendment to Walker’s Complaint would have
been futile, and thus the District Court properly dismissed without leave to amend. See
Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002). As the appeal
presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the judgment below. See 3d
Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 and 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.
1
To the extent Walker sought to invalidate his state convictions, the remedy was
available only through habeas corpus proceedings. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
486-87 (1994).
4