Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

FAVORS v. U.S.

July 21, 2004.

SHARLETTA FAVORS
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: STEWART DALZELL, District Judge

ORDER

AND NOW, this 21st day of July, 2004, upon consideration of plaintiff Sharletta Favors's motion for relief from judgment brought under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2) and (3) (docket entry # 34), the defendants' response thereto, and Favors's reply brief in support of the motion, and the Court finding that:

(a) On April 5, 2001, defendant Deputy United States Marshal Wright Smith mistakenly arrested Favors in her boyfriend's apartment at 4429 Walnut Street in Philadelphia while attempting to execute a bench warrant for the arrest of one Charlotte Robinson, a fugitive believed to be at large in the Philadelphia area;

  (b) Within a few hours of the arrest, the Marshals released Favors after a fingerprint comparison revealed that she was not, in fact, Robinson;

  (c) Favors subsequently filed this action, and defendant Smith simultaneously answered the complaint and moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds;

  (d) Smith attached a lengthy affidavit to the motion that set forth the reasons why he was looking for Robinson at 4429 Walnut Street and the circumstances that informed his decision to arrest Favors;*fn1

  (e) In response to the motion, Favors argued that summary judgment was inappropriate because there were "numerous material facts and/or inferences from material facts that are in dispute" that implicated the issue whether Smith acted reasonably in arresting her;

  (f) In support of this argument, Favors contended that she and Robinson do not look alike and pointed out that Smith had failed to attach affidavits from Officer Gregory Laszlo and apartment manager Jim Steuber;*fn2

  (g) However, Favors did not forward with any affidavits or new evidence that might contradict Smith's version of the events, and she also declined to file a motion for leave to conduct discovery on the qualified immunity issue;

  (h) On September 16, 2003, we granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after concluding, inter alia, that Smith's decision to arrest Favors was objectively reasonable;

  (i) Favors appealed this decision, and while she was pursuing her case in the Court of Appeals, she located Mr. Steuber at his new home in Coral Springs, Florida;

  (j) On February 25, 2004, Mr. Steuber signed a declaration that provides an account of the events surrounding Favors's arrest that are strikingly at odds with Agent Smith's heretofore uncontradicted account how he came to believe that Charlotte Robinson was living at 4429 Walnut Street;

  (k) On May 7, 2004, our Court of Appeals granted Favors's motion for leave to file the Rule 60(b) motion now before us;

  (l) Favors's motion argues that she is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(2) and (3) on the basis of Mr. Steuber's declaration as well as a letter she has obtained from Scott Smith, who spoke with Agent Smith in his capacity as leasing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.