Harris v. Krasner, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17913 (U.S. App. 3d Cir. June 6, 2024) (Hardiman, J.)
Harris v. Krasner, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided June 6, 2024.
OPINION OF THE COURT
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
Crystal Harris and her daughter, Kadeyja Dixon-Fowler, sued the City of Philadelphia and its District Attorney’s Office, District Attorney Larry Krasner, and Assistant District Attorney Brian Kean, seeking damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs claim Defendants violated their rights under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions by disclosing Internal Affairs Division (IAD) complaints filed against Harris. Harris also claimed that Defendants violated her state and federal rights by barring her from testifying as a trial witnesses. The District Court dismissed the suit and Plaintiffs appeal. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
In this case the plaintiff, (police officer) – who was on a “Do Not Call to Testify” list. Apparently because the police officer had some dirt in their background, the prosecutors were declined to call him as a witness in cases they prosecuted.
Harris claimed defendants violated her First Amendment right to testify, and deprived her of overtime pay for court appearances, in violation of the 14th Amendment. They also sought injunctive relief. They claimed emotional distress from the “Do Not Call” list – which they said caused serious psychological harm. The District Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, and the Third Circuit affirmed.
The prosecutorial disclosure of Harris’s IAD file and their decision to place her on the “Do Not Call” list did not deprive her of any interest protected by the United States’ constitution. Harris cannot sustain her Section 1983 claim on reputational harm alone. There was no proper claim from junctive relief. There was no common law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. That claim would be barred by the high public official immunity under the Pennsylvania Subdivision Tort Claims Act.
