John Zimmerman v. Thomas Corbett, Jr.

Citations: 873 F.3d 414; 2017 WL 4583149; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20115Docket: 16-3384

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; October 16, 2017; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Appellants, including former Pennsylvania Attorney General Thomas W. Corbett and other high-ranking officials, appeal a partial denial of their motion for judgment on the pleadings in a malicious prosecution case brought by John Zimmerman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Zimmerman claims the appellants were involved in bringing criminal charges against him, violating his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as Pennsylvania law. The court found that probable cause existed for initiating the criminal proceedings against Zimmerman, thus preventing him from establishing a prima facie case of malicious prosecution. Consequently, the court reversed the District Court's order that denied the appellants' motion. The case originated from a grand jury investigation into allegations of Republican legislators receiving bonuses for campaign work conducted on state time, leading to charges against Zimmerman for hindering the investigation by concealing evidence.

Appellants alleged that a male conspirator warned the HRCC via a call from Zimmerman's desk phone about the delivery of campaign materials, asserting that Zimmerman's presence at his desk was typical and that the materials were indeed moved afterward. Based on this call, Zimmerman faced charges including Hindering Apprehension, Obstructing Government Functions, and two counts of Criminal Conspiracy related to these charges. The appellants later dismissed these charges, leading Zimmerman to file a complaint claiming malicious prosecution, violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Pennsylvania law. The appellants sought dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The District Court determined that appellants could not claim qualified immunity regarding allegations of witness tampering, destruction of exculpatory evidence, and submitting false statements in a criminal complaint. The court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331, and the appeal fell under 28 U.S.C. 1291, with a de novo review standard for motions for judgment on the pleadings. To succeed in his malicious prosecution claim under 1983, Zimmerman needed to demonstrate that the defendants initiated a criminal proceeding without probable cause, that the proceeding ended in his favor, acted with malice, and that he experienced a deprivation of liberty. Under Pennsylvania law, similar criteria must be met, emphasizing the necessity of proving the absence of probable cause and malice. Probable cause is defined as having sufficient trustworthy information to lead a reasonable person to believe a crime was committed, requiring more than mere suspicion but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Zimmerman's criminal proceeding concluded favorably for him, leading him to assert that the Appellants initiated the prosecution without probable cause. Nonetheless, he does not contest several critical facts: a call was made from his phone to the HRCC about delivering campaign material, he was typically at his desk, and the promised boxes were moved to the HRCC. Zimmerman claims that others had access to his phone, he was not present during the movement of the boxes, and Room 414, where the boxes were taken, was publicly accessible and known as 'Perzel’s Office.' He further argues that the arrangement of the office allowed many individuals to use his phone line and to move the materials, thus claiming a lack of probable cause for his arrest.

Despite Zimmerman's assertions raising potential reasonable doubt, the uncontested facts support the conclusion that Appellants had probable cause to prosecute him. His desk presence, the phone call made from his office, and the subsequent movement of campaign materials to HRCC do not negate the possibility that he was involved in an effort to conceal evidence. Therefore, even if Zimmerman's claims are valid, they do not undermine the probable cause established by the Appellants. The Appellants are entitled to judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), leading to the reversal of the District Court’s decision. Zimmerman's request for sanctions against the Appellants is deemed unnecessary, as the conclusion of probable cause negates his claim of malicious prosecution.