Janice Johnson; Ernest Johnson, Jr.; Ernest Johnson, Sr. v. TIM HOAGLAND, PATROLMAN, in his official

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
NO. 01-2684
__________
JANICE JOHNSON;
ERNEST JOHNSON, JR.;
ERNEST JOHNSON, SR.,
Appellants
v.
TIM HOAGLAND, PATROLMAN,
in his official and individual capacities;
PORT AUTHORITY TRANSIT CORP.
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 98-cv-04192)
District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle
__________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on March 8, 2002
Before: BECKER, Chief Judge, ALITO, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges,
(Filed: March 15, 2002)
__________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Ernest Johnson, Jr., Janice Johnson and Ernest Johnson, Sr., brought this action
against Timothy Hoagland, a police officer for the Port Authority Transit Corporation
("PATCO"), in both his official and individual capacities, and against PATCO alleging
violations of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. During the pendency of this
action before the District Court, Officer Hoagland filed a petition for bankruptcy and
received a discharge of all dischargeable debt under 11 U.S.C. 727. Hoagland filed a
motion in District Court to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment, and PATCO
filed a motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed all claims against Hoagland
and granted PATCO’s motion for summary judgment. The Johnsons appeal.
The District Court had jurisdiction over the Johnsons’ federal law claims pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343, and exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the
Johnsons’ state common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. We subject the District Court’s grant of summary
judgment to plenary review. Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120, 130 n.6 (3d Cir.
2001). Plenary review is also warranted in reviewing the District Courts dismissal of a
complaint. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F.3d. 28, 30 (3d Cir.
1995). However, we review the denial of declaratory relief for an abuse of discretion.
Id.
The Johnsons concede that Officer Hoagland cannot be liable for monetary
damages because of the discharge of his debts, but argue instead for a declaratory

-- 1 of 2 --

judgment against him. We agree with the District Court that declaratory relief is not
appropriate in this case because the Johnsons "have failed to allege a genuine
controversy the resolution of which would be aided by a declaration by this Court that
Officer Hoagland violated plaintiffs’ civil rights." App. at A-17.
The District Court considered next whether PATCO violated the Johnsons civil
rights by not properly training its police officers. Even if, as the Johnsons argue, the
allegation was more properly characterized as whether "PATCO developed and
maintained policies or customs exhibiting a deliberate indifference to the Constitutional
rights of persons which cause the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights," App. Br. at 21 (citing
Amended Complaint 34), summary judgment was properly granted. The District Court
carefully considered the allegations, and properly determined that the Johnsons had not
made a showing that Hoagland’s training was deficient or that PATCO was deliberately
indifferent to an alleged need for additional training.
We also agree with the District Court’s conclusions that the Johnsons’ loss of
consortium claim against PATCO fails for lack of a predicate claim, and that PATCO
was not given timely notice to defend in regard to the Johnsons’ common law claims.
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order on all counts. ___________________
Please file the foregoing Not Precedential Opinion.
/s/Marjorie O. Rendell
Circuit Judg

-- 2 of 2 --