Vincent Vince v. Matthew Godlewski

── Vincent Vince v. Matthew Godlewski ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 25-1756 VINCENT ANTHONY VINCE, Appellant v. MATTHEW GODLEWSKI, in his individual capacity; JONATHAN KASKEY, in his individual capacity; JOSEPH WOZNIAK, in his individual capacity; JOHN CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, JR., in his individual capacity; ROBERT CAPPARELL, in his individual capacity; JOHN DOE No.1, in his individual capacity; JOHN DOE No. 2, in his individual capacity _____________________________ Appeal from U.S. District Court, M.D. Pa. Judge Julia K. Munley, No. 3:24-cv-00902 Before: RESTREPO, FREEMAN, and MASCOTT, Circuit Judges Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) January 21, 2026 Decided: June 3, 2026 _____________________________ NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION* RESTREPO, Circuit Judge. Appellant Vincent Anthony Vince appeals the District Court’s order granting ap- pellees’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, we will affirm the order. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent.  I. BACKGROUND The appellees are five officers from the Wilkes-Barre Township Police Department. Vince contends that those officers violated his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”). The action arises from an incident on June 3, 2022, when Vince was retrieving his car from ACT Towing in Wilkes-Barre Town- ship, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. The appellees approached Vince and informed him they were arresting him based on an active warrant for an alleged violation of a Protection from Abuse Order. He advised the officers that the warrant had been dismissed by a judge of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, but the appellees insisted that they had verified the warrant. Vince contacted his lawyer who advised the appellees that the warrant had been lifted, and he could provide proof later that day. Vince’s counsel directed the appellees to contact the Luzerne County Prothonotary’s Office or Vince’s wife to confirm the dismissal. Vince contends that the appellees refused to confirm those details, and instead, they placed him in handcuffs and advised him of his rights. He alleges that the appellees held him in a “hot, unairconditioned vehicle” for 3–4 hours until his wife secured copies of the court order nullifying the warrant. Id. After viewing the court order, the appellees made several phone calls before releasing Vince from custody. The same lawyer involved in the under- lying incident currently represents Vince in this action. Vince claims that he suffered trauma and severe emotional distress as a result of the incident. On June 6, 2024, he filed this lawsuit and alleged four causes of action: Count I – Section 1983 claims for false arrest, excessive force, and due process violations; Count 2 II – false arrest; Count III – false imprisonment; and Count IV – intentional infliction of emotional distress. In August 2024, the appellees moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss all counts for failure to state a claim. On March 21, 2025, the District Court granted the appellees’ motion as to the Sec- tion 1983 claims and determined that the officers were protected by qualified immunity because they had “reasonably mistaken probable cause.” JA15. The District Court did not give Vince leave to amend his complaint, finding that doing so would be futile. An