Tanya Peteete v. Asbury Park Police Department

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-1813
___________
TANYA PETEETE,
Appellant
v.
ASBURY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT;
CITY OF ASBURY PARK; MONMOUTH COUNTY;
MONMOUTH COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE;
MONMOUTH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE;
JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; JOHN DOES CORPORATION1-10;
CHIEF OF POLICE MARK KINMON; OFFICER JEFF WHITE;
OFFICER LORENZO PETTWAY; OFFICER NICHOLAS TOWNSEND;
OFFICER DANIEL KOWSALUK; SCOTT SAMIS; ALEX TORRES
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 3-09-cv-01220)
District Judge: Honorable Mary L. Cooper
___________
Argued on February 9, 2012
Before: SLOVITER, VANASKIE, Circuit Judges, and
POLLAK,∗ District Judge
(Filed: May 1, 2012)
_________
∗ The Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
OPINION
_________
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
Tanya Peteete brought suit alleging, inter alia, that Detective Scott Samis provided
false testimony during grand jury proceedings, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
District Court determined that Detective Samis is entitled to absolute immunity from
liability under § 1983, and dismissed Peteete’s claim. We will affirm.
I.
A police raid at the residence of Peteete and her husband Eugene in Asbury Park,
New Jersey, was well underway when Peteete and her husband returned home from
grocery shopping. The raid—conducted as a joint effort between the Asbury Park Police
Department (“APPD”) and the Monmouth County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”)—
uncovered quantities of heroin and related paraphernalia. Peteete, who was not in
possession of any contraband, and several others were arrested and charged with various
drug offenses.
Following her arrest, Peteete was detained for six months at the county jail.
During that time, a grand jury convened and heard testimony from the raid’s lead
investigator, Detective Samis, who at all relevant times was employed by the Monmouth
County Prosecutor’s Office (“MCPO”). Although the grand jury ultimately indicted
Peteete, the pending drug charges were eventually dropped when she agreed to plead
guilty to an unrelated charge of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
Thereafter, Peteete initiated this civil rights action, claiming, among other things:
that she was arrested without probable cause; that Detective Samis’ grand jury testimony
was false; that her six-month detention amounted to false imprisonment; and that the
whole ordeal caused her emotional distress. In Peteete’s amended complaint, she named
as defendants the City of Asbury Park (“the City”), the County of Monmouth (“the
County”), the APPD and five of its officers (Police Chief Mark Kinmon, Sergeant Jeff
White, Officer Lorenzo Pettway, Officer Nicholas Townsend, and Officer Daniel
Kowsaluk), the MCSO and one of its officers (Officer Alex Torres), the MCPO, and
Detective Samis.
The District Court granted the MCPO’s motion to dismiss Peteete’s complaint on
Eleventh Amendment grounds, and it granted the joint motion for summary judgment of
the County, the MCSO, Torres, and Pettway. The District Court granted Samis’ motion
to dismiss in part, and in particular with respect to “all claims insofar as they are based on
. . . allegations that Samis falsely testified during the Grand Jury proceedings.” The
District Court later granted Samis’ motion for summary judgment on those of Peteete’s
claims that survived the motion to dismiss. Peteete settled out of court with the
remaining defendants (the APPD, the City, Kinmon, Kowsaluk, Townsend and White).
She now appeals.1
II.
1 We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

-- 3 of 5 --

4
Peteete’s lone claim on appeal is that the District Court erred in finding Samis to
be absolutely immune from § 1983 liability.2
In Rehberg, the Supreme Court held that “grand jury witnesses should enjoy the
same immunity as witnesses at trial.” 132 S. Ct. at 1506. “This means that a grand jury
witness has absolute immunity from any § 1983 claim based on the witness’ testimony.”
Id. The Court reasoned that there is no basis to distinguish between grand jury and trial
witnesses because: (1) a witness’ fear of retaliatory litigation may be present in both
contexts; and (2) “in neither context is the deterrent of potential civil liability needed to
prevent perjurious testimony.” Id. at 1505.
Peteete contends that Samis, if immune at
all, is entitled only to qualified immunity. For that contention she relies principally on
two cases: Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) and Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118
(1997). We hold, however, that Peteete’s argument fails in light of the Supreme Court’s
decision in Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S. Ct. 1497 (2012).
Rehberg also rejects Peteete’s attempted reliance on Malley and Kalina. Peteete
argues that those cases demonstrate that there is no absolute immunity under § 1983 for
“complaining witnesses”—like Detective Samis—who “‘set the wheels of government in
motion by instigating a legal action.’” Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 164-65 (1992).
However, the Court in Rehberg declared that “testifying, whether before a grand jury or
at trial, was not the distinctive function performed by a complaining witness.” 132 S. Ct.
at 1507. Additionally, the Court held that because “a complaining witness cannot be held
2 We review this claim de novo. Yarris v. County of Delaware, 465 F.3d 129, 134
(3d Cir. 2006).

-- 4 of 5 --

5
liable for perjurious trial testimony,” there is no reason “why a complaining witness
should be subject to liability for testimony before a grand jury.” Id. (emphasis in
original). We therefore conclude that the District Court did not err by determining that
Detective Samis is entitled to absolute immunity for his grand jury testimony.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

-- 5 of 5 --