Orguna Sanders v. City of Erie

── Orguna Sanders v. City of Erie ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General CLD-125 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 26-1135 ___________ ORGUNA SANDERS, Appellant v. CITY OF ERIE; DANIEL SPIZARNY, Chief of Police for City of Erie; SUZANNE C. MACK, District Magistrate Judge; NICHOLAS A. MASKERY, District Attorney; JEREMY C. LIGHTNER, District Attorney; K.M. MULLANEY, Erie Police Dept PTLM; JOSEPH SCHEMBER, Mayor of the City of Erie ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00355) Magistrate Judge: Honorable Richard A. Lanzillo ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 April 30, 2026 Before: BIBAS, PHIPPS, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed May 21, 2026) _________ OPINION* _________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM Orguna Sanders, a Pennsylvania state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals from the District Court’s judgment against him in a civil-rights action. We will summarily affirm. I. Sanders filed a complaint in the District Court1 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Erie, its mayor, its chief of police, an individual Erie police officer (“Erie City Defendants”), two Erie County assistant district attorneys (“ADA Defendants”), and a Magistrate Judge alleging that the police officer, K.M. Mullaney, initiated certain criminal charges against him without probable cause. Sanders claimed that the Magistrate Judge improperly increased his bail because of those allegedly baseless criminal charges, and that the ADA Defendants maliciously prosecuted him on those charges. After Sanders filed his operative amended complaint, all defendants filed motions to dismiss his complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the motion as to the Magistrate Judge and the ADA defendants, concluding that they were immune from 1 In this case, a United States Magistrate Judge presided over the District Court proceedings pursuant to the parties’ consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Accordingly, we will refer to the Magistrate Judge as “the District Court.” 2 suit. The Court also dismissed the claims against the mayor, and the chief of police, and so the case continued solely against Officer Mullaney. After a period of discovery, Sanders and Mullaney each moved for summary judgment, which the Court granted in favor of Mullaney, concluding that he had sufficient probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings against Sanders. After the Court denied Sanders’s motion for reconsideration, he filed a timely appeal. In this Court, Sanders has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and has filed a brief that has been construed as a document in support of his appeal. II. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review district court decisions regar