Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-9-2005
Walker v. Abraham
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3552
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Walker v. Abraham" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 130.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/130
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HPS-3 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-3552
________________
EDWIN WALKER,
Appellant
v.
LYNNE ABRAHAM, DISTRICT ATTORNEY; PHILADELPHIA SHERIFF SALE
DEPARTMENT; JOHN D. GREEN, SHERIFF
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-05356)
District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
November 4, 2005
Before: CHIEF JUDGE SCIRICA, WEIS AND GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: December 9, 2005)
____________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Pro se litigant Edwin Walker, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution
in Dallas, Pennsylvania, filed this action against District Attorney Lynne Abraham, the
Philadelphia Sheriff Sale Department, and Sheriff John D. Green pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1
1983. Walker alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights by initiating
forfeiture proceedings against a commercial property owned by him without notice and
without his consent.
On March 13, 1998, Walker was arrested and charged with possession with
intent to deliver and delivery of a controlled substance. Walker was convicted by a jury
on September 27, 1999 and his conviction was affirmed on October 6, 2004. On April
14, 1998, prior to his conviction, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office filed a
petition for forfeiture of his property, located at 3045 Germantown Avenue, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, at which he was arrested and from which he was accused of selling drugs,
and $8,422.00, the amount of money seized from Walker upon his arrest. Walker
thereafter filed a motion for the return of his property. On April 3, 2002, following a
prolonged discovery dispute, the Court of Common Pleas held a hearing with Walker
appearing by video conference. The District Attorney offered into evidence the notes of
testimony from Walker’s criminal trial, which documented the fact that Walker was tried
before a jury and convicted of selling drugs out of the 3045 Germantown Avenue
property. Walker proffered no evidence in support of his motion. The Court then granted
the District Attorney’s petition for forfeiture of 3045 Germantown Avenue, finding that
the property had been used to store, sell, and distribute narcotics, and denied Walker’s
motion for the return of his property, holding that Walker had failed to present any
evidence of lawful ownership. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed on
2
September 4, 2003.
Walker then initiated the instant action in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on November 17, 2004. The District Court
granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, holding that, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
it was without subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Walker’s claims against Abraham,
Green, or the Sheriff Sale Department regarding the forfeiture and sale of 3045
Germantown Avenue, because to do so would be to exercise jurisdiction over claims that
had been “‘actually litigated’ in state court” or are “‘inextricably intertwined with [the]
state adjudication,’ meaning that ‘federal relief can only be predicated upon a conviction
that the state court was wrong.’” Desi’s Pizza, Inc. v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 321 F.3d
411, 419 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Parkview Assocs. Partnership v. City of Lebanon, 225
F.3d 321, 325 (3d Cir. 2000)); see also Walker v. Horn, 385 F.3d 321, 329 (3d Cir. 2004).
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Having
granted Walker leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, we must now determine
whether Walker’s appeal should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An
appeal may be dismissed as frivolous if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831-32, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989). The
District Court properly determined that it was without subject matter jurisdiction over
Walker’s allegations regarding the forfeiture and sale of his property, as any grant of
3
relief “would prevent [the] state court from enforcing its order[].” Desi’s, 321 F.3d at
422. For the foregoing reasons, Walker’s appeal is without legal merit and will be
dismissed as legally frivolous.
4