## Facts

- Louis and Theresa Barna spent the evening drinking alcohol with family members and later returned to their home after a dispute at a Christmas tree lot.
- Off-duty, out-of-uniform police officers Paul Otterbine (Mrs. Barna’s brother) and Richard Echevarria followed the group to the Barnas’ home after being asked by a family member to ensure safe travel.
- A confrontation at the Barnas’ home escalated into a physical altercation; the Barnas alleged that Otterbine and Echevarria assaulted Mr. Barna with batons during what the court characterized as a personal, family-related dispute.
- Mr. Barna obtained firearms from inside the home and fired shots into the air or ground.
- Uniformed/officer backup arrived, including officers Ruiz and Sanabria; officers detained Mrs. Barna, who was intoxicated and agitated, and arrested Mr. Barna on firearms and assault-related charges.
- The Barnas sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (1) excessive force/assault by the off-duty officers, (2) unconstitutional arrest of Mr. Barna, and (3) unreasonable detention of Mrs. Barna.
- After plaintiffs rested at trial, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law for Otterbine, Echevarria, Ruiz, and Sanabria under Rule 50 and dismissed claims against Officer Charles Hawkins for insufficient service of process.

## Issues

1. Whether the alleged off-duty assault by Otterbine and Echevarria occurred under color of state law for § 1983 purposes.
2. Whether a reasonable jury could find Mr. Barna’s arrest lacked probable cause or was otherwise an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
3. Whether a reasonable jury could find Mrs. Barna’s detention was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
4. Whether dismissal of claims against Officer Hawkins for insufficient service was proper where an answer had been filed in his name, potentially waiving service defenses.

## Decision

- Affirmed judgment as a matter of law for Otterbine and Echevarria on the § 1983 assault/excessive-force claim because the evidence could not support a finding they acted under color of state law.
- Affirmed judgment as a matter of law for defendants on Mr. Barna’s unlawful-arrest claim because, on plaintiffs’ evidence, officers acted reasonably and had probable cause given the firearms and shots fired during an intoxicated disturbance.
- Affirmed judgment as a matter of law for defendants on Mrs. Barna’s detention claim because no reasonable jury could find the temporary detention unreasonable under the circumstances.
- Reversed dismissal of claims against Hawkins and remanded for a factual determination whether the answer filed in his name was authorized and, if authorized, whether it waived insufficient-service defenses.

## Legal Principles

- An officer acts under color of state law for § 1983 only when purporting to exercise official authority or when the conduct is made possible by the officer’s state-conferred authority; purely private conduct, including personal disputes, is not state action.
- Rule 50 judgment as a matter of law is proper when there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party on an essential element.
- Probable cause and Fourth Amendment reasonableness are evaluated objectively based on the totality of circumstances; volatile situations involving firearms and intoxication can supply probable cause and justify immediate safety measures.
- Insufficient service of process (and related personal-jurisdiction defenses) may be waived by an authorized appearance and answer that fails to timely raise the defense; authorization is a factual predicate to waiver.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that an off-duty, family-based altercation did not constitute action under color of state law for § 1983, and that the officers’ arrest of Mr. Barna and detention of Mrs. Barna were objectively reasonable given the firearm-related disturbance; it also required further proceedings to determine whether Officer Hawkins authorized an answer that could waive service defenses.


Barna v. City of Perth Amboy, 42 F.3d 809 (3d Cir. 1994)