Paul Cononie v. Borough of West View

── Paul Cononie v. Borough of West View ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 08, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-2257 __________ PAUL CONONIE, Appellant v. BOROUGH OF WEST VIEW; MICHAEL BRUNNER;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.  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 C.S. § 2718, though the charge later was withdrawn.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 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 ba