Paul Cononie v. Borough of West View

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-2257
__________
PAUL CONONIE,
Appellant
v.
BOROUGH OF WEST VIEW; MICHAEL BRUNNER; RICHARD G. OPIELA;
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; WEST VIEW POLICE DEPARTMENT
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-00824)
District Judge: Honorable Marilyn J. Horan
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 1, 2026
Before: MATEY, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 8, 2026)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
Paul Cononie appeals pro se and in forma pauperis from the District Court’s
dismissal of his second amended complaint without further leave to amend. We will
affirm.
Cononie alleges that, around 1:30 AM on April 8, 2024, two police officers
employed by the Borough of West View in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, unlawfully
arrested and detained him at his residence without informing him of the crime he had
committed, and then searched his belongings without his consent to determine his
identity. In Cononie’s telling, the arrest stemmed from his efforts to “exit a volatile
situation” with an intoxicated woman with whom he lived. See ECF Doc. 15 ¶ 10. He
was charged with strangulation in violation of 18 Pa. C.S. § 2718, though the charge later
was withdrawn. Cononie then filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against one of the officers, the
Borough, the Commonwealth, and a magisterial district judge, raising two counts of false
imprisonment and one count each of assault and battery, identity theft, and treason.
The District Court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and
dismissed it without prejudice. The court concluded that Cononie’s claim for monetary
damages against the Commonwealth was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, that
neither the Commonwealth nor the Borough were “persons” for Section 1983 purposes,
and that the judge was entitled to judicial immunity. As for the false imprisonment
claims against the named police officer, the court dismissed one count with leave to

-- 2 of 5 --

3
amend and the other with prejudice. The former invoked his warrantless arrest, but
otherwise alleged insufficient facts to show that he was unlawfully detained; the latter
turned solely upon the purported delay he experienced before seeing a magistrate judge,
which did not amount to false imprisonment. Cononie failed to state a claim for assault
and battery because the conduct he complained of—being arrested, handcuffed, searched,
fingerprinted, booked, and imprisoned—was within the bounds of permissible police
behavior as alleged; he did not plausibly allege that his identifying information was used
for unlawful purposes under Pennsylvania’s identity theft statute; and he lacked a private
right of action to assert a claim of treason.
The District Court granted Cononie leave to amend his false imprisonment, assault
and battery, and identity theft claims against the named police officer only; it dismissed
all other claims and defendants with prejudice. Cononie largely ignored the District
Court’s directive. His amended complaint omitted some of the claims he was expressly
permitted to reassert against the named officer and instead raised new, vague claims
against all defendants for violating his civil and constitutional rights, which the court
dismissed for want of any material factual allegations. The court again granted him leave
to amend, but this time solely to plead a claim of false imprisonment against the named
officer. Cononie did that and more, asserting in his second amended complaint that all
defendants had falsely imprisoned him and that they violated the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments and several provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

-- 3 of 5 --

4
Defendants moved to dismiss the operative pleading under Rule 8 and
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District Court granted their
motions under the latter rule. Although Cononie included some new details about his
arrest, the court explained that they undermined his false imprisonment claim because
they effectively confirmed that a woman with whom he had a relationship called the
police to report that he had harmed her in their shared residence, where they both were
found when police arrived and interviewed them. Because the responding officers had
reason to believe that Cononie had committed a crime after those interviews, he could not
plausibly assert that his arrest was unlawful. Nor could he show that the officers
assaulted him merely by placing him under arrest. The District Court also determined
that the named officer was entitled to qualified immunity because he relied upon a
credible report that a crime had occurred, which he corroborated by interviewing the
complainant. The court again explained the grounds for its earlier dismissal of the other
defendants, and, given that Cononie had failed to state a claim despite three attempts to
do so, dismissed his second amended complaint with no further leave to amend. Cononie
appeals.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo. Schmidt v. Skolas, 770 F.3d
241, 248 (3d Cir. 2014).

-- 4 of 5 --

5
Cononie does not identify any specific errors with the District Court’s analysis,
thereby forfeiting any claims he might have raised. See M.S. ex rel. Hall v. Susquehanna
Twp. Sch. Dist., 969 F.3d 120, 124 n.2 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Pelullo, 399
F.3d 197, 222 (3d Cir. 2005)); In re Surrick, 338 F.3d 224, 237 (3d Cir. 2003). Instead,
he contends that the court simply “followed the crowd” in granting appellees’ dismissal
motions, which he believes betrayed a bias against him. See C.A. Doc. 11 at pdf 8, 10.
We disagree. The District Court thoroughly and properly assessed his claims in a series
of opinions that identified numerous deficiencies with his pleadings and offered him
several opportunities to cure them. He failed to do so. Dismissal without further leave to
amend thus was appropriate.1
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
1 To the extent Cononie seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the District Court’s
recusal, his request is denied because his arguments do not meet the stringent standards
for issuing such a writ.

-- 5 of 5 --