Maria C. Jordan; Geoffrey Jordan, H/w v. Feather O. Houstoun

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
Nos. 01-3825 and 01-3955
___________
MARIA C. JORDAN; GEOFFREY JORDAN, H/W,
Appellants
v.
FEATHER O. HOUSTOUN; CHARLES G. CURIE; GEORGE KOPCHICK; AIDAN
ALTENOR; ROBERT DIRESO; DONALD ADAMS; RICHARD SOKOLOWSKI;
WILLIAM STEPHENS; ROGER STULTS; BERNADINE WEST; SANDRA
MITCHELL; JACK DAVIS; MARY ANNE LAWLER; ANGELA ALEXANDER;
PAT CONWAY; PAUL J. EVANKO, COMMISSIONER; THOMAS COUREY,
LIEUTENANT COLONEL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER; ROBERT G. WERTZ,
MAJOR; THOMAS J. LACROSSE, CAPTAIN; ROBERT B. TITLER, CAPTAIN;
JAMES GILLISON, CAPTAIN; DAVID B. KRESIER, LIEUTENANT; BARRY
SPARKS, LIEUTENANT; ROBERT D. QUEEN, LIEUTENANT; GREGORY W.
MITCHELL, SERGEANT; DAVID FRISK, CORPORAL; MARTIN M.
CARBONELL, TROOPER; ACE DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC.; DOMINIC
FARINELLA;
MICHAEL SOLTYS
___________
JAMES LLOYD KEPNER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS THE ADMINISTRATOR
FOR THE ESTATE OF CAROL SUE KEPNER,
Appellant at No. 01-3955
v.
FEATHER O. HOUSTOUN; CHARLES G. CURIE; GEORGE KOPCHICK; AIDAN
ALTENOR, Ph.D.; WILLIAM STEPHENS; ROGER STULTS; DONALD ADAMS;
RICHARD SOKOLOWSKI; BERNADINE WEST; SANDRA MITCHELL; JACK
DAVIS; ROBERT DIRESO; MARY ANNE LAWLER; ANGELA ALEXANDER;
PAT CONWAY; PAUL J. EVANKO, COMMISSIONER; THOMAS COUREY, LT.
COL., DEPUTY COMMISSIONER; ROBERT G. WERTZ, MAJOR; THOMAS J.
LACROSSE, CAPTAIN; ROBERT B. TITLER, CAPTAIN; JAMES GILLISON,
CAPTAIN; DAVID KRESIER, LIEUTENANT; GREGORY W. MITCHELL,
SERGEANT; JAMES L. MURPHY, CORPORAL; DAVID FRISK, CORPORAL;
MARTIN M. CARBONELL, TROOPER; ROBERT QUEEN,
LIEUTENANT; BARRY SPARKS, LIEUTENANT
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civil Nos. 01-cv-03005 and 01-cv-02988)
District Judge: The Honorable Harvey Bartle, III
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 23, 2002
BEFORE: SLOVITER, NYGAARD, and BARRY, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

(Filed July 31, 2002)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellants, Maria Jordan, Geoffrey Jordan, and James Lloyd Kepner
appeal from an order of the District Court which dismissed their complaint. Appellants
allege as error the issues listed in paragraph I, taken verbatim from their briefs. Because
we conclude that the District Court did not err, we will affirm.
I.
The allegations of error asserted by appellants, Maria and Geoffrey Jordan,
filed at No. 01-3825 are as follows:
1. Whether Plaintiffs’ Complaint has sufficiently plead a 1983 clai
under the state created danger doctrine where the harm ultimately
caused to Plaintiff, Maria Jordan was foreseeable and fairly direct,
the Norristown State Hospital Employees acted in willful disregard
for the safety of Plaintiff, Maria Jordan, there existed a relationship
between the Norristown State Hospital Employees and Plaintiff,
Maria Jordan, and the Norristown State Hospital Employees used
their authority to create an opportunity that otherwise would not
have existed for the third party’s crime to occur.
2. Whether Plaintiffs’ complaint has sufficiently plead a 1983 clai
under the state created danger doctrine where the harm ultimately
caused to Plaintiff, Maria Jordan was foreseeable and fairly direct,
the Pennsylvania State Police Employees acted in willful disregard
for the safety of Plaintiff, Maria Jordan, there existed a relationship
between the Pennsylvania State Police Employees and Plaintiff,
Maria Jordan, and the Pennsylvania State Police Employees used
their authority to create an opportunity that otherwise would not
have existed for the third party’s crime to occur.
The allegations of error asserted by appellant, James Lloyd Kepner, filed at
No. 01-3955 are as follows:
1. Whether the factual allegations contained in the Kepners’ federal
civil action Complaint and all reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Kepners,
support a state-created danger theory of liability under 42 U.S.C.
1983 against the "Norristown State Hospital Employee
Defendants"?
2. Whether the factual allegations contained in the Kepners’ federal
civil action Complaint and all reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Kepners,
support a state-created danger theory of liability under 42 U.S.C.
1983 against the "Pennsylvania State Police Employee Defendants"?
3. Whether the factual allegations contained in the Kepners’ federal
civil action Complaint and all reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Kepners,
support a claim of unconstitutional policy, practice, or custom and
claims of inadequate supervision/training.
4. Whether the factual allegations contained in the Kepners’ federal
civil action Complaint and all reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Kepners,
defeat the Affirmative Defense of Qualified Immunity?
II.
We are faced in this appeal with another case in which plaintiffs have tried
to transmute their state-law claims into constitutional torts. We offer no view as to the
merit of their claims. Nonetheless, we will, as did the District Court, reject their
arguments that their constitutional rights were violated in some way by the Appellees.

-- 2 of 3 --

The facts and procedural history of this case are well known to the parties and the court,
and it is not necessary that we restate them here. The reasons why we write an opinion of
the court are threefold: to instruct the District Court, to educate and inform the attorneys
and parties, and to explain our decision. None of these reasons are presented here. We
use a not-precedential opinion in cases such as this, in which a precedential opinion is
rendered unnecessary because the opinion has no institutional or precedential value. See
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Internal Operating Procedure
(I.O.P.) 5.3. Under the usual circumstances, when we affirm by not-precedential opinion
and judgment, we briefly set forth the reasons supporting the court’s decision. In this
case, however, we have concluded that neither a full memorandum explanation nor a
precedential opinion is indicated because of the very extensive and thorough opinion
filed by Judge Bartle of the District Court. Judge Bartle’s opinion adequately explains
and fully supports his order and refutes the appellants’ allegations of error. Hence, we
believe it wholly unnecessary to further opine, or offer additional explanations and
reasons to those given by the District Court, as to why we will affirm. It is a sufficient
explanation to say that, essentially for the reasons given by the District Court in its
opinion dated the 26th day of September, 2001, we will affirm.
III.
In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District
Court dated September 26, 2001.
_________________________
/s/ Richard L. Nygaard
Circuit Judge

-- 3 of 3 --