Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-29-2005
Boatner v. Hinds
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-1320
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Boatner v. Hinds" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 944.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/944
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.
CPS-197 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-1320
________________
HARRY BOATNER,
Appellant
v.
SANDRA HINDS, Jail Nurse; MELISSA AMODIE, District Justice;
TOM SANSONE, Detective; WILLIAM F. HALL, Warden;
NEW CASTLE POLICE DEPT.; DAVID CUMO, Police Officer
_____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 02-cv-01671)
District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
April 7, 2005
Before: ALITO, McKEE and AMBRO, Circuit Judges
(Filed June 29, 2005 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Harry Boatner appeals from the District Court’s unfavorable resolution of his complaint
seeking monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Because we conclude that the
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and seeks monetary relief
against defendants who are immune, and because the appeal is frivolous, we will dismiss
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
On July 17, 2002, Boatner attempted to burglarize a school. While breaking into
the building, he injured his hand and went to a nearby hospital for stitches. Boatner was
arrested after police discovered discarded bloodstained clothing in the hospital’s
bathroom. The clothing matched those worn by the suspect as described by several
witnesses at the scene. The police applied for a search warrant to take Boatner’s blood
and match it against the blood found on the clothes and at the school. The warrant
application was granted. Several officers retrieved Boatner from a jail holding area and
when they informed him of the warrant, he resisted, injuring Officer Sansone. During the
extraction, the nurse missed finding a vein several times due to Boatner’s struggling, but
then wiped blood from a wound he suffered while resisting the escorting officers.
On September 30, 2002, Boatner filed an action under § 1983 against six named
defendants. Specifically, Boatner claims nurse Sandra Hines took his blood without
consent; New Castle County District Justice Amodie issued a search warrant without
probable cause; Officer Sansone used excessive force; Officer Cumo arrested him without
1
Boatner also appears to seek injunctive relief, but nowhere is it made clear what
specific injunctive relief is requested.
2
probable cause; Warden Hall employed workers who committed unlawful acts, and the
New Castle County Police Department “did employ an abusive police officer.”
On February 19, 2004, the District Court either dismissed the complaint or granted
summary judgment as to all claims and parties with the exception of the excessive force
claim against Officer Sansone. On July 14, 2004, Boatner moved to amend his complaint
adding two new defendants: Major Micco for using threats and excessive force to hold his
arm during the withdrawal of blood, and Captain Adamo who allegedly assaulted and
injured Boatner during an unidentified incident. The motion to amend was denied. On
January 3, 2005, the District Court granted Defendant Sansone’s motion for summary
judgment. Boatner then filed this appeal challenging each of the District Court’s orders.
With respect to his claims against Justice Amodie and Nurse Hines, the defendants
are immune from suit. There is no doubt Justice Amodie is entitled to absolute judicial
immunity for the act of and consequences stemming from the issuance of the search
warrant. See Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 211 F.3d 760, 768-69 (3d Cir.
2000). Defendant Hines is also immune from suit. An “action taken pursuant to a
facially valid court order receives absolute immunity from § 1983 lawsuits for damages.”
Hamilton v. Leavy, 322 F.3d 776, 782-83 (3d Cir. 2003). Nurse Hines was acting
pursuant to a facially valid warrant to withdraw blood. Accordingly, Amodie and Hines
are absolutely immune from suit under § 1983.
3
With respect to Officers Cumo and Sansone, an appeal from the denial of the
claims is frivolous. Boatner’s claim against Cumo cannot be sustained. Probable cause is
determined by the totality of the circumstances. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 233
(1983). Based on Cumo’s affidavit of probable cause, the factual basis of which goes
largely unchallenged, there can be no doubt that probable cause existed. With respect to
Officer Sansone, the claim is equally frivolous. A year after filing the initial complaint,
Boatner was convicted and sentenced on charges stemming from his assault on Sansone.
At the sentencing hearing, Boatner admitted that he had no recollection of the event and
stated, “I would be more apt to take his [Sansone’s] word about what happened than my
own, because I don’t know.” Boatner presents no other evidence to support his
allegations.
With respect to Warden Hall and the New Castle County Police Department, see
Bonenberger v. Plymouth Township, 132 F.3d 20, 25 n.4 (3d Cir. 1997) (“we treat the
municipality and its police department as a single entity for purposes of § 1983
liability.”), Boatner fails to state a claim. A government entity may be liable for the
actions of its employees only if the plaintiff identifies a policy or custom that amounts to
deliberate indifference to individual rights. See City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S.
378, 388-89 (1989); Natale v. Camden County Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 583-84 (3d
Cir. 2003). Because in neither case does Boatner allege any policy or custom that caused
the alleged violation, he fails to state a claim.
4
Finally, we review the denial of a motion to amend a complaint for abuse of
discretion. See Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 352 F.3d 107, 116 (3d Cir. 2003).
The District Court denied Boatner’s motion to amend because first, the inclusion of the
two new defendants constituted undue delay. At least with respect to Micco, Boatner was
aware of the basis for a complaint at the time of filing. He states he feared retaliation
from Micco, but provides no basis for such assumptions. Second, with respect to Adamo,
Boatner fails to indicate how Adamo is connected to the current action. Defending
against such a claim would clearly prejudice the defense. Accordingly, an appeal from
the District Court’s decision is frivolous.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is utterly lacking in legal merit. We will
dismiss under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). Boatner’s request for appointment of
counsel on appeal is denied.
5