Karimu Hamilton v. Christopher Flanagan
Karimu Hamilton v. Christopher Flanagan
Opinion
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________
No. 24-1567 _______________
KARIMU HAMILTON, Appellant
v.
CHRISTOPHER B. FLANAGAN; ANDREW PANCOAST; KEVIN KOCHANSKI; RACHEL RIDGEWAY; JUSTIN RIDGEWAY; RADNOR POLICE OFFICERS Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; SHAWN PATTERSON; STEPHANIE RACHT; PATRICK LACEY; SGT. CHRISTOPHER GLUCK; BRETT GEAVES; BRYN MAWR FIRE COMPANY
_______________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02599) Chief District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg _______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on December 13, 2024
Before: BIBAS, CHUNG, and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: December 17, 2024) _______________
OPINION* _______________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. BIBAS, Circuit Judge.
Like good fences, good sewage systems make good neighbors. Karimu Hamilton owns
one half of a duplex in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania; Rachel and Justin Ridgeway own the
other half. On December 3, 2018, the Ridgeways smelled gas or sewage coming from
Hamilton’s house, so they called 911 to report the smell. Two firefighters knocked on her
door and said they wanted to check for gas leaks. Hamilton let them in, and police officer
Patterson slipped in as well. The firefighters tested for gas, found cyanide gas, and told
Hamilton to open her windows. She told them that her water had been off for two weeks
and the gas probably came in through the pipes. They were there for all of six minutes.
The next evening, a county social worker came to Hamilton’s house with roughly six
police officers to check if her house was safe for her six-year-old daughter. Hamilton let
the social worker and police officer Racht come inside. They did a ten-minute walk-
through and confirmed that the house was suitable for her daughter.
Town officials soon sent Hamilton a notice ordering her to have a plumber inspect her
pipes. When she did not comply, they sent a follow-up notice a month later ordering her to
fix two plumbing issues within ten days. In April, they sued her to make her comply. But
she refused to open the door to the process server and did not have that work done.
In June, the Ridgeways again called 911, this time to report the smells of gas and smoke
coming out of Hamilton’s house. Firefighters smelled sewer gas, but Hamilton would not
let them or police in. She let in a representative of the gas company, who found no gas leak
but did identify a strong sewage odor coming from Hamilton’s basement, which he
reported to the police.
2 Three days later, Justin Ridgeway called 911 yet again to report that Hamilton was
outside, holding a saw blade and cursing him loudly but not threatening him. The
dispatcher alerted police officers that someone with a knife was threatening neighbors.
Hamilton says she was walking with hedge trimmers. Officer Lacey arrived, pointed a gun
at her, and ordered her to freeze and sit down, but she kept standing. Within minutes, he
holstered his gun. Another officer told her to wait for the police chief, who arrived and
asked to search her home. She refused consent, and police left. That whole encounter lasted
about twenty-six minutes.
Three days after that, twenty police officers arrived with an administrative search
warrant. Hamilton let them in. The house was filthy, with raw sewage in the basement, an
overflowing toilet, rat and mouse feces, collapsed ceilings, and a sump pump pumping
sewage out a basement window. A town official declared the house unfit to live in, so
Hamilton moved out. After a court ordered her to fix the house, she did and moved back in
the next year.
Hamilton then filed this civil-rights suit under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. She claimed that the
warrantless searches violated the Fourth Amendment; that police had falsely arrested her
and used excessive force; that they had evicted her without due process; and that they did
all this because she is black, violating equal protection.
The District Court granted summary judgment for defendants and sanctioned
Hamilton’s lawyer. We commend it for patiently parsing the briefing and factual record.
We review de novo, drawing all inferences in favor of Hamilton. Tundo v. County of
Passaic,
923 F.3d 283, 286–87 (3d Cir. 2019). Even so, all her claims fail.
3 The Ridgeways cannot be sued under § 1983 because they never acted under color of
state law. See West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48(1988). They are simply neighbors, private
parties rather than state actors. Calling 911 to report misbehavior, even falsely, is not
enough. Hamilton alleges that they conspired with police but has no evidence of that. See
Cruz v. Donnelly,
727 F.2d 79, 80(3d Cir. 1984). The District Court properly concluded
that she has no claim against them.
She also has no Fourth Amendment claim against the firefighters or police officers. The
firefighters entered Hamilton’s home only once, when she consented to their search. See
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte,
412 U.S. 218, 219(1973). When they asked to enter again
another time, she refused entry, so they never searched her house. Officer Patterson entered
Hamilton’s house in response to the reported smell of gas. The District Court correctly held
that qualified immunity shields Patterson because existing precedent does not “squarely
govern[ ].” Kisela v. Hughes,
584 U.S. 100, 104(2018). On appeal, Hamilton does not
identify governing precedent, but instead challenges that holding in a single sentence. That
silence forfeits the issue. See Santomenno ex rel. John Hancock Tr. v. John Hancock Life
Ins. Co. (U.S.A.),
768 F.3d 284, 292 n.3 (3d Cir. 2014). Finally, Officer Racht entered with
the social worker, but only with Hamilton’s consent.
Nor was there any arrest or unreasonably long detention that could count as a false
arrest. During the twenty-six-minute interaction, the officers were working diligently to
accomplish the purpose of the stop. Baker v. Monroe Twp.,
50 F.3d 1186, 1192 (3d Cir.
1995). The only excessive force alleged was that Office Lacey pointed his gun at her for at
most six minutes, but he did that after hearing that someone with a knife was threatening
4 neighbors. The District Court held that Lacey was entitled to qualified immunity. Hamilton,
again, did not challenge the District Court’s application of qualified immunity on appeal,
so she again forfeits the issue.
There is no evidence of racial discrimination and so no equal-protection violation. As
Hamilton admits, white residents have likewise been evicted from houses unfit to live in.
Hamilton also got due process. The town warned her of the plumbing problems three
times starting in December 2018, almost seven months before she was evicted. She
challenges the June administrative search warrant, arguing that there was no cyanide gas
or sewage and that her house was habitable. But she offers no evidence that the affidavit
supporting the warrant was untruthful or that officers had reason to doubt it. And she cites
no authority requiring police to have personal knowledge of or verify the underlying facts.
Finally, Hamilton challenges how the District Court handled her case. It denied in
camera review of some documents and sanctioned her attorney. Hamilton waited until her
reply brief to challenge the District Court’s finding of privilege and thus forfeited the issue.
See Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc.,
903 F.2d 186, 204 n.29 (3d Cir. 1990).
And the sanctions were proper. Hamilton’s lawyer made frivolous objections and
postponed a deposition by himself, defying the District Court’s instructions.
Because all her claims are meritless, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of
summary judgment.
5
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished