Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-19-2008
Pridgen v. Law
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-4727
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Pridgen v. Law" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 209.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/209
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 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-4727
___________
PARRIS PRIDGEN,
Appellant
v.
TREVOR LAW
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-00117J)
Magistrate Judge: The Honorable Keith A. Pesto
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
August 1, 2008
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: November 19, 2008)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Parris Pridgen filed a civil rights lawsuit in 2006 against Appellees
Trevor Law and Captain Craig Faust of the Johnstown, Pennsylvania Police Department,
alleging that officers of that department used excessive force in arresting him.
Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Pridgen claimed that the officers exercised
unlawful or excessive force in violation of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments. Specifically, he claims that in 2005, several members of the Johnstown
Police Department came to his home and that, as he turned to retrieve his wallet from this
back pocket, Officer Law placed in him a “full/half nelson type move,” threw him to the
ground, and punched him in the back of the head twice. After he was taken to the
hospital, he was diagnosed with a broken facial bone as a result of Officer Law’s
throwing him to the ground.
At the conclusion of a bench trial, the Magistrate Judge ruled against Pridgen,
setting forth his findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record orally. Inasmuch as
he issued no written opinion, we entered an order to transcribe the bench trial. We have
completed our review of the bench trial and, finding no error, will summarily affirm the
judgment below.
Our reading of the transcript indicates that, as Officer Law tried to arrest Pridgen,
they fell on an overturned couch and that Pridgen hit his head on the floor, causing a
bloody nose and what may have been a nasal fracture. The Magistrate Judge noted that
2
this was not a state assault case but instead an alleged unreasonable use of force claim in
the effectuation of an arrest. He found there was no evidence of a punch and credited
Law’s statement that he held Pridgen down using a forearm per his training after Pridgen
fell to the ground. The Magistrate Judge concluded that there was a reason for Officer
Law to grab Pridgen — who appeared to have been running for the door. The Magistrate
Judge further determined that there was insufficient injury for a constitutional violation.
Our thorough review of the record indicates that the questions raised in this appeal
are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. We agree with the Magistrate
Judge that, under the circumstances presented, the injury here, although serious, was
insufficient to constitute a constitutional violation. Summary action is appropriate if there
is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. Because
this appeal presents us with no substantial question, see I.O.P. 10.6, we will summarily
affirm.1
1.
We note that the Appellant has filed a motion “for oral argument.” We will
construe this filing as a motion to accept Appellant’s written statement and grant the
motion.
3