FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 6, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 93 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :1 0- cv -8 12 75 -KAM
LARRY D. BUTLER, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ver su s SHERIFF OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, DORETHEA COLL IER, in di vi du al ly, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ju ly 6, 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, BAR KETT, an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

Case: 11-13933 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 1 of 17CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e:

Inon e o f hi s b al la ds , Ji m Cro ce warn edth atth ere a re fo urth in gs th aty ou jus t d on ’t do : “ Youdo n’t tug on Supe rm an ’s cap e/Youdo n’t s pi t i nt o t he win d/ Youdo n’t p ul l the m as k o ff tha t o ldLon e Ran ge r/ An d youdo n’t m es s ar ou nd wit h J im .” He cou ldha ve ad de d afif th warn in g t o t ha t l is t: “ Andy ou do n’t l eta 1 pi st ol -p ack in g m ot he r cat chy ou na ke d i n h er d au gh te r’s cl os et .” I. It a ll st art edwit h aph on e cal l. Nin et een -y ear- ol d Uzu ri C ol li er ca ll ed 2 Larry Bu tl er, wh o was of asi m il ar ag e, an d i nv it edhi m to he r ho us e. Bu tl er res po nd edto th e in vi ta ti on th e way m os t youn g m enov er the ag e o f co ns en t wou ldha ve —h e wen t. On ce Bu tl er was at Uzu ri’s h ou se , he a ndsh e co ns en te d t o watc h t el ev is io n fo r a wh il e. Then th ey co ns en te d t o d o wh aty ou ng co up le s al on e in a ho us e h av e b een co ns en ti ng to do si nc e th e m em ory of m an(an d wo m an )
ru nn eth n otto th e co nt rary. The reco rddo es no t d is cl os e h ow l on g t he se two y ou ng pe op le ha d kno wn ea ch othe r in th e d ic ti on ary se ns e, bu t t ha t af te rn oo n i n Uzu ri’s b edro om

th ey als o kne w each ot he r in th e b ib li cal sen se . Whi le do in g s o, J im Croce, You Don’ t Mess Around With J im (ABC Rec ords 1972). 1 Be cause this is an appeal f rom a F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 12(b)(6) dismiss al, we 2 draw the fa cts from the a

mended c omplaint, accepting those f acts a s true and c onstruing the m in the light most favor able to the plaintiff. L anfe ar v. H ome Depot, Inc., 679 F .3d 1267, 1271 n.4 (11th Cir. 2012). 2

Case: 11-13933 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 2 of 17an d wh il e cl ot he d i n t he m an ne r th atis cu st om ary in su chm at te rs , whi ch is to say

no t atall , th ey

he ardso m eo ne co m in g i nt o t he ho us e. The reco rddo es no t t el l u s h ow t he ti m in g wo rk edou t as un fo rtu na te ly as it di d. Itm ay

be th atth e two y ou ng pe op le si m pl y lo sttra ckof t im e, whi ch wou ld be un de rs ta nd ab le gi ve n t he cir cu m st an ces . Or it m ay be th atUzur i’s m ot he r, Dor ethe a Co ll ie r, le ft wo rkearl y th atda y . Howev er i t h ap pe ne d, Co ll ie r cam e cl os e to cat ch in g the co up le co up li ng . So cl os e th atwhen th ey he ardhe r, Bu tl er ha d o nl y en ou gh ti m e to da sh in to th e b edro om clo se t wea rin g n ot hi ng bu t a l oo k of su rp ris e. Co ll ie r was a co rrec ti on s o ffi cer a t t he Eagl e Acad em y , whi chis a “bo ot cam p fa ci li ty for m in or s” run by the Pal m Beac h C ou nty

Sh eri ff’s Offi ce. Sh e was weari ng he r un ifo rm

an d g un be ltwit h p is to l an d “ [u ]ponen te rin g t he roo m , sh e be ga n d em an di ng th atUzur i ex pl ai n wh y sh e was un dr es se d a ndwhatsh e was do in g.” Whi le tal ki ng with h er d au gh te r, Co ll ie r to okoff he r ut il it y

be ltan d t hr ew itonth e b ed
. So m et im e th erea fte r—t he im pl ic at io n i s s oo ne r rat he r th an la te r—C ol li er d is co ve redBu tl er s ta rkna ke d i n h er d au gh te r’s cl os et . She y el le d athi m an d p un ch edhi m

on e ti m e. The n C ol li er p ic ke d up h er u ti li ty bel t, p utit ba ckon , anddre w hergu n. Sh e to ldBu tl er tha t i f he m ov edor d idno t fo ll ow h er co m m an ds , sh e wou ldsh oo t h im
. 3

Case: 11-13933 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 3 of 17Bu tl er trie d t o e xp la in th atUzur i h adin vi te d h im to th e h ou se , bu t Co ll ie r in si st edth athe m

us t h av e b ro ke n i n. Sh e h adth e st il l-n ak edBu tl er turn a ro un d, sh e h an dc uf

fedhi m , andsh e m ad e h im ge t d own onhi s kne es . After s ta y in g t he re

“ fo r a p ro lo ng edpe rio d,” Bu tl er p le ad edwith C ol li er tha t h e co ul d n otm ai nt ai n th atpo si ti on an y

lo ng er. Co ll ie r res po nd edby tell in g h im to be ndov er o r sh e wou ldsh oo t h im . She “ m ad e num ero us th reat s ag ai ns t Bu tl er, [t el li ng hi m ] th at sh e wou ld‘ ki ll hi m ’ if h e d idno t o be y he r co m m an ds .” Whi le st il l h ol di ng Bu tl er atgu np oi nt , Col li er ca ll edhe r hu sb an d andto ld hi m to co m e h om e imm ed ia te ly. Afte r th at , sh e cal le d asupe rv is orat Eag le Acad em y an d a sk edwhatch arg es sh e co ul d b rin g a ga in stBu tl er fo r en te rin g t he ho us e an d “ en ga gi ng in sex ua l re la ti on s wi th he r daug ht er.” Th e supe rv is orto ld Co ll ie r th atif B ut le r ha d e nt eredwit ho utpe rm is si on he co ul d b e ch arg edwit h tre sp as si ng an d rape , bu t t ha t i f he ha d b een in vi te d i n, s he wou ldha ve to lethi m go . Abo utth is ti m e, Co ll ie r’s hu sb an d a rri ve d a t t he ho us e, an d h e “ al so ass au lt ed Bu tl er.” In whatm an ne r, we are n otto ld
. Co ll ie r co nt in ue d t o h ol d B ut le r atgu np oi nt , th reat en in g t o k il l h im if h e d id
no t fo ll ow o rd ers . After C ol li er’s hus ba nd“ in qu ire d fu rth er” abo utth e n ak ed
m an ’s id en ti ty andde te rm in edwho he was, Bu tl er was all owe d t o g etdre ss edan d le av e, al th ou gh Co ll ie r ke ptth e g unpo in te d a t h im whi le he was d res si ng . One 4 Case: 11-13933 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 4 of 17can ass um e th atitdi d n ottak e Bu tl er l on g t o g etdre ss edan d g etou t, b utbe fo re h e

ha d t im e to lea ve Co ll ie r “ warn edhi m ab ou t t he co ns eque nc es of f il in g c ha rg es or ev en‘ th in ki ng ab ou t’ rep orti ng th e in ci de nt .” She to ldBu tl er tha t i f he rep orte d wha t h adhapp en ed , sh e “ wou ldsubm ita rep ort t o d is cred ithi m an d wo ul d e ng ag e in so m e ‘creat iv e wri ti ng ’ if n eces sary to jus ti fy th e fi li ng of c harg es ag ai ns t h im fo r tr es pa ss in g o n t he pro pe rty.” Desp it e th os e th reat s, Bu tl er ev en tu al ly repo rte d th e in ci de ntto law en fo rcem en t. The re i s n o a ll eg at io n t ha t Co ll ie r res po nd edby
subm it ti ng a rep ort o f he r own or b y fil in g t res pa ss in g c ha rg es ag ai ns t Bu tl er. II. Bu tl er fi le d alaws ui t i n F lo rid a st at e co urt ag ai ns t Co ll ie r, in di vi du al ly and in he r of fic ia l capa ci ty as a co rrec ti on s o ffi cer wi th th e Pal m Beac h C ou nt y Sh eri ff’s Offi ce, an d a ga in stRic Brad sh aw, th e Sh eri ff o f Pal m Beac h C ou nt y , Fl or id a, in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty onl y . But le r’s co m pl ai ntcla im edth atCo ll ie r ha d vi ol at ed42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 b y us in g “ pl ai nl y

ex ces si ve an d d is pr op orti on at e fo rce on Bu tl er t o e ffec t an un la wfu l an d u nr eas on ab le sea rch an d s ei zu re” ( Co un t II ). His co m pl ai ntals o i nc lu de d ast at e la w cla im of “ ba tt ery/ex ces si ve for ce” a ga in st Co ll ie r in he r of

fic ia l capa ci ty (Cou ntIII), an d s ta te law cl ai m s ag ai ns t h er b ot h in di vi du al ly andin he r of fic ia l capa ci ty for fal se im pr is on m en t (C ou nt s IV & V)
an d fo r in te nt io na l an d n eg li ge ntin fli ct io n o f em ot io na l d is tre ss (Co un ts VI–I X). 5 Case: 11-13933 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 5 of 17The cla im

ag ai ns t Sh eri ff Bra ds ha w was a d eri va ti ve on e, as se rti ng th athe ha d a s a m atte r of

po li cy , pra ct ic e, an d c us to m in ad equa te ly trai ne d, d is ci pl in ed , and
supe rv is edde pu ti es an d o th ers un de r hi s s up erv is io n, i nc lu di ng Co ll ie r, res ul ti ng in vi ol at io ns of § 19 83 (Co un t I)
. Co ll ie r an d B rad sh aw rem ov edth e cas e to fed eral di stric t co urt, s ee 2 8 U.S.C. § 1 44 1( a), b as edon fed eral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on , see id . § 1 33 1, wh ic h was pr em is edon th e § 19 83 cla im s. Th e d efen da nt s ea ch fil eda m ot io n t o d is m is s t he
co m pl ai nt . In a wri tt enres po ns e to th e m ot io ns to di sm is s h is §1 98 3 c la im s, Bu tl er co nt en de d t ha t Co ll ie r ha d a ct edun de r co lo r of law b y , am on g o th er thi ng s, at te m pt in g t o c ha rg e h im

wit h acri m e, as se rti ng th at : “ [s ]he co nt act edoff ic ia ls at th e Eag le Acad em

y . . . ab ou t wh atch arg es sh e co ul d b rin g a ga in stpl ai nt iff . She
ev enso ug htto ch arg e Pl ai nt iff wit h t res pa ss in g b utwas o ve rri dd enby her
supe rv is or .” Bec au se Bu tl er’s arg um en ts ag ai ns t d is m is sa l re li edon fact s t ha t

3
were n otinth e co m

pl ai ntit se lf, t he co urt d is m is se d t he co m pl ai ntwit h l eav e to fil e an am en de d o ne . Bu tl er fi le d a n a m en de d c om pl ai nt , ass ert in g t he same clai m s ag ai ns t t he At the hea

ringon the motions to di smiss, Butler’s attorney told the district court: “[S] he 3 soug ht to arre st him, she detained him, Ibelieve onc e other officia ls from the sher iff’s of fice arrived.” How ever , the amende d complaint, which wa s filed there afte r, does not alleg e, or e ven imply , that anyone fr om the Sheriff’ s Offic e, other than Collier herse lf, arrived at the house . In revie wingthe dismissal of the amende d complaint we a re limited to the alleg ations that it contains. 6

Case: 11-13933 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 6 of 17de fen da nt s, ex cep t fo r th e n eg li ge ntin fli ct io n o f em ot io na l d is tre ss cla im s

(o rig in al ly Cou nt s VII & IX), whi ch he ha d a lre ady ag reedto di sm is s. The de fen da nt s ea ch fil eda m ot io n t o d is m is s t he am en de d c om pl ai nt . They arg ue d,
am on g o th er thi ng s, t ha t the all eg at io ns st il l d idno t s ho w Col li er h adact edun de r co lo r of law. The di stric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t t he all eg at io ns inth e am en de d c om pl ai nt sh owe d n o m or e th anCo ll ie r act in g a s a p riv at e in di vi du al be cau se no th in g s he al le ge dl y di d t o B ut le r rel ie d o n o r in vo ke d h er au th or it y as alaw en fo rcem en t of fic er. Fo r th atreas on , th e co urt o nc e ag ai n d is m is se d B ut le r’s § 1 98 3 c la im s un de r Ru le 12 (b )(6 ). Becaus e Bu tl er h adbe enun ab le to st at e a fed eral cla im de sp it e b ei ng gi ve n a n o pp ortu ni ty to am en d t he co m pl ai nt , th e co urt co nc lu de d th atan y furth er at te m

pt s t o a m en d wo ul d b e fu ti le an d m ad e th e d is m is sa l wi th pr ejud ic e. The c ou rt d ecl in edto ex erci se supp le m en ta l ju ris di ct io n o ve r Bu tl er’s st at e la w cla im s, re m an di ng th em to st at e co urt. 4 III.

“ W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f a m ot io n t o d is m is s u nd er

Butler does not contend that the district court abuse d its discretion in decliningto 4 exercise suppleme ntal jurisdiction over the state la w claims and r emandingthem to state court, if the cour t was cor rec t that he fa iled to state a c laim under § 1983. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(3) , 1441(c) (2). 7

Case: 11-13933 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 7 of 1712 (b )(6 ) fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m , acce pt in g t he all eg at io ns in th e co m pl ai ntas tru e an d c on st ru in g t he m in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ff.” Iro nwo rk ers Loc al Uni on 68 v. As tra Zen eca P ha rm ., LP, 63 4 F .3d13 52 , 13 59 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . The p la in ti ff’s “ [f]actu al all eg at io ns m us t b e en ou gh to rai se a ri gh t t o re li ef ab ov e th e sp ecu la ti ve lev el , on th e as su m pt io n t ha t al l t he al le ga ti on s i n t he co m

pl ai ntare t ru e (ev enif d oubt fu l i n fa ct ).” Bel l At l. Co rp . v. Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. 5 44 , 55 5, 1 27 S.Ct . 19 55 , 19 65 (20 07 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . To
su rv iv e a m ot io n t o d is m is s, t he pl ai nt iff m us t p le ad“ a cl ai m

to rel ie f th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face .” Id . at 5 70 , 12 7 S .Ct. at19 74
. IV. Sect io n 1 98 3 d oe s n otfed eral iz e al l t orts or o th er d ep riv at io ns of r ig ht s co m m it te d b y a pe rs on who is a law enf or cem en t o ffi cer o r othe r go ve rn m en t ag en t. In st ead , th e st atut e co ve rs on ly tho se de pr iv at io ns co m m it te d “ un de r co lo r of an y st atut e, or di na nc e, reg ul at io n, cu st om , or u sa ge , of a ny Stat e o r Terri to ry or th e Dis tri ctof C ol um

bi a.” 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. Th atrequi rem en t i s m or e co nc is el y refe rredto as t he “ act in g u nd er co lo r of st at e la w” el em en t. Alm an d v . DeKalb Cn ty., Ga., 10 3 F .3d15 10 , 15 13 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (h ol di ng th atto est ab li sh a § 19 83 cla im , a pl ai nt iff

m us t s ho w th athe “ was de pr iv edof afed eral rig htby a pe rs on act in g u nd er co lo r of st at e la w”). A def

en da ntact s u nd er co lo r of st at e la w 8 Case: 11-13933 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 8 of 17whe n s he de pr iv es th e p la in ti ff o f a ri gh t thr ou gh th e ex erci se of aut ho rit y th atsh e ha s b y vi rtu e o f he r go ve rn m en t o ffi ce o r po si ti on . Id. Th e d is po si ti ve qu es ti on 5 is whethe r th e d efen da ntwas e xe rci si ng th e p owe r sh e p os se ss edba se d o n s ta te au th or it y or wa s ac ti ng on ly as a p riv at e in di vi du al . Id. The Supr em e Co urt h as ex pl ai ne d t ha t t he “ act s o f of fic ers in th e am

bi t o f th ei r pe rs on al pu rs ui ts are pl ai nl y ex cl ud ed ” fro m

be in g u nd er co lo r of

law, wh il e th e “ [a]cts of o ffi cers who
un de rta ke to pe rfo rm

th ei r of fic ia l dut ie s ar e in cl ud edwhet he r th ey he w to th e li ne of th ei r au th or it y

or o ve rs te p i t.” Sc rews v. Un it edSta te s, 3 25 U.S. 91 , 11 1, 6 5 S.Ct . 10 31 , 10 40 (19 45 ). Ourde ci si on in Alm an d (wh ic h i s co nt ro ll in g aut ho rit y ) an d t he Fif th Ci rcu it ’s dec is io n i n Un it edSta te s v . Tarpl ey , 94 5 F .2d80 6 (5 th Cir . 19 91 ) (wh ic h is pe rs ua si ve au th or it y ), il lu st rat e th e li ne th atis dra wn i n § 19 83 cas es of t hi s type. Inth e Alm an d c as e, we co ns id eredth e co nduc t o f a p ol ic e o ffi cer wh o fo rcedhi s way int o awom an ’s apa rtment a ndrap edhe r. 10 3 F .3dat 1 51 1– 12
. The wom anha d o rig in al ly let t he off ic er i n “ be cau se of h is st atus as apo li ce of fic er” andhi s p ro fferof i nf orm at io n abo utth os e res po ns ib le for th e rap e o f th e wom an ’s dau gh te r ab ou t a m on th earl ie r. Id. at15 14 –1 5. Aft erwar ds , when he
The ter ms “under c olor of state la w” a nd “state a ction” re fer

to the same kind of c onduct 5 in the context of a § 1983 claim; an off icial who has a cted unde r color of state law ha s eng ag ed in state ac tion. See Almand, 103 F.3d at 1514 n.7. 9 Case: 11-13933 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 9 of 17pr op os it io ne d h er, the wom anto ldth e o ffi cer t o l eav e an d a fte r he di d s he clo se d

th e d oo r. Id. at15 15 . Im m ed ia te ly the reaf

te r, th e o ffi cer “ fo rcedop enth e cl os ed do orwith s uc h s ho ckth atwoo d b ro ke off th e d oo r. Havi ng pu sh edop enth e d oo r, [h e] reen te red[he r] apart m en t, p hysic al ly stru gg le d wi th he r, an d fo rci bl y rap ed he r.” Id . at 1 51 2. W e co nc lu de d i n Al m an d t ha t t he off ic er’s co nduc t i n b reak in g i n a nd rap in g t he wom anwas apri va te act , no t ac co m pl is he d b ecau se of p owe r he po ss es se d u nd er s ta te law, an d i n t ha t re sp ect“ he was n o d iff eren t fr om

an y ot he r ru ffi an .” Id . at 1 51 5. We exp la in edth at“ an y thug or b ur gl ar co ul d h av e co m m it te d t he same vio le ntact s.” Id . For t ho se reas on s, we d eci de d t ha t the of fic er’s “ co nduc t (i f he di d t he th in gs all eg ed ) was th e actof apri va te cit iz enan d di d n otvi ol at e th e Co ns ti tu ti on ,” an d we c on cl ud edth atth e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d ha ve grant edsu m

m ary jud gm en t i n h is fav oron th e § 19 83 cla im . Id. The Tarp le y

cas e was di ffer en t. Will ia m Tarp le y , a de pu ty she rif

f, de vi se d a p la n t o a ss au ltKerry Ves ta l, a m anwho ha d e ng ag edin anex tra m ari ta l af fai r wit h Tar pl ey ’s wife. Tarp le y , 94 5 F .3dat 8 07 . W ith the he lp of h is fai th le ss wife , Tarp le y pl an ne d t o l ur e Ves ta l t o h is ho us e fo r th e as saul t. See id . at 8 07 –0 8. Whi le at t he sh eri ff’s s ta ti on , Tarpl ey an d afel lo w dep uty , Mic ha el Pen a, m ad e

“ sap g lo ve s,” wh ic h h av e “ rubb er h os in g fi ll edwit h m et al or l eadsh otatt ach edto 10 Case: 11-13933 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 10 of 17th e fi ng ers .” Id . at 8 08 . Tarpl ey pl an ne d t o u se th os e weap on s t o a tt ackVest al
. See i d. Whe n t he un su sp ect in g Ves ta l arriv edat Tar pl ey ’s ho us e, th e wif

e p ul le d hi m in si de wher e Tarp le y

tac kl edhi m

an d re pe at ed ly hithi m

in th e h ead . Id. Tarp le y th enpu t h is servi ce p is to l i n Ves ta l’s m ou th , andto ldhi m th at“ he was a se rg ean t o n t he po li ce d ep art m en t, t ha t h e wou ldan d s ho ul d k il l Ves ta l, an d t ha t he co ul d g etaway

wit h i t b ecau se he was aco p.” Id. Tarp le y sai d, “ ‘I’ ll ki ll y ou . I’m a co p. I ca n.’” Id. Th e Tarp le y s t he n s umm on edDepu ty Pena t o t he ho us e, an d Tar pl ey to ldVest al th atPen a was “ a fel lo w ser ge an t fr om th e p ol ic e de pa rtment.” Id. Dep uty Pen a co nf

irmed to Vest al th atTarp le y ha d s ho t p eo pl e in th e p as t. Id . After t he two de pu ti es fin al ly let Ves ta l g o, t he y fol lo wedhi m

in Pen a’s squa d c ar an d ra di oe d a no th er o ffi cer t o d o t he same. Id . Bot h s qu adcars fo ll owe d Ves ta l t o the ed ge of t own . Id. Tarp le y co nt en de d t ha t “ he was a ct in g a s a jea lo us hu sb an d, n otas apo li ce of fic er.” Id . at 8 09 . The Fi fth Cir cu itreject edth atco nt en ti on , ho ld in g t ha t t he re was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r a jury to f in d t ha t Tarp le y

act edun de r co lo r of

law. 6

The c ourt was c onductingthe “unde r color of law” a naly sis for the purpose of apply ing a 6 criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 242. It did not, however, distinguish betwee n the meaningof the phrase in that statute and its meaningin the context of a § 1983 claim but instead re lied on § 1983 decisions. See Ta

rpley , 945 F.3d at 808–09.

11 Case: 11-13933 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 11 of 17Id . The co urt re as on ed :

Tarp le y di d m or e th ansi m

pl y us e h is servi ce weapo n andid en ti fy hi m se lf a s a p ol ic e o ffi cer. Atsev eral po in ts du rin g h is ass au ltof Ves ta l, h e cl ai m edto ha ve sp eci al au th or it y forhi s ac ti on s b y

vi rtu e of hi s o ffi ci al st atus . He clai m edth athe co ul d k il l Ves ta l b ecau se he was anoff

ic er o f th e la w. Sig ni fic an tl y , Tarpl ey su m m on edan ot he r po li ce o ffi cer f

ro m th e sh eri ff’s s ta ti on an d i de nt ifi edhi m as afel lo w of fic er an d a ll y . The m enth enpro ceed edto run Vest al ou t o f to wn i n th ei r sq ua d c ar. The pre se nc e o f po li ce an d t he airof o ffi ci al au th or ity pe rv ad edth e en ti re i nc id en t. Id
. Bu tl er re li es on th e Tarp le y de ci si on as p ers ua si ve au th or it y , bu t t he pre se nt cas e is clo se r to ou r bi nd in g p rece de ntin Alm an d t ha n i t i s t o Tar pl ey . As in Alm an d, Co ll ie r’s co nduc t, o r m is co nduc t, was no t ac co m pl is he d b ecau se of h er st atus as aco rrec ti on s o ffi cer. J us t as “ an y th ug or b ur gl ar co ul d h av e co m m it te d th e sa m e v io le ntact s” as t he off ic er i n Al m an d, 1 03 F.3dat 1 51 5, an y ira te m ot he r wit h a n a ng er m an ag em en t p ro bl em co ul d h av e d on e wha t Co ll ie r di d. 7 Butler ’s counse l admitted as much in the hea ringon the def

endants’ f irst motions to 7 dismiss . The c ourt asked:

Well, let’s assume she neve r ar rested him. She’s just an a ng ry mother yelling a nd scre amingat this man, naked ma n that she finds in her house with her daughter a

nd does eve ry

thing she did other than a rre st him and calls the authorities. She’s just an angry , very angry woman, would that have been state action eve n though she had a ba dg e and she had handc uffs a nd she had a

gun and she had he r uniform on? Ag ain, assume she pointed the gun at him, she put the handc uffs on him and she’ s y elling a

nd scre amingat him and threateninghim but never say s you’re under a rre st and neve r say s I ’m ca lling the police beca use you committed a cr ime 12 Case: 11-13933 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 12 of 17Thi s ca se actua ll y pre se nt s a we ak er b as is fora fi nd in g o f act io n u nd er co lo r of st at e law th anth e Alm an d c as e d id . Unl ik e th e d efen da ntin th atcas e, Co ll ie r di d n otus e h er l aw en fo rcem en t p os it io n t o s tri ke up a rel at io ns hi p wi th th e v ic ti m orto in it ia ll y

ga in acce ss to th e h ou se wher e th e as saul t t oo k p la ce. Itwas Co ll ie r’s ho us e, an d s he walk edin jus t l ik e an y pri va te in di vi du al returni ng ho m e fro m work
. Co ll ie r’s di sc ov ery of a na ke d m anin he r daug ht er’s cl os etwas n ot th e res ul t o f an off

ic ia l s earc h b y

a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer. When Co ll ie r pu nc he d B ut le r, sh e was act in g a s an en rag edpa ren t; sh e was no t p ur po rti ng to ex erci se he r of

fic ia l au th or it y

to subdue a cri m in al forpu rp os es of a n a rres t. When sh e h an dc uf

fedan d d et ai ne d B ut le r, Co ll ie r di d n otpu rp ort t o b e ex erci si ng he r au th or it y to arre sta cri m in al . Whe n s he cal le d h er h us ba nd , sh e was act in g a s a wife an d p aren t, n otas a n o ffi cer. An d wh enCo ll ie r cal le d h er p la ce o f work, a bo otcam p fa ci li ty for m in or s, fo r ad vi ce ab ou t wh ethe r Bu tl er co ul d b e ch arg ed wit h acri m e, sh e d idno m or e th ananord in ary ci ti zen co ul d d o b y si m pl y reque st in g i nf

orm at io n fr om

law en fo rcem en t au th or it ie s ab ou t wh ethe r Bu tl er’s
co nduc t was cri m in al
.
and neve r attempts to use the law ag ainst him. S he’s just using, she ’s just being an angry person, she just happens to have some of these la w enf orce ment tools with her, would that be a state a ction? Butler ’s counse l answer ed: “I don’t believe so.”

13 Case: 11-13933 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 13 of 17Alt ho ug h C ol li er d idus e th e p is to l t ha t s he wore as a n o ffi cer, an y adul t wit ho uta fel on y

reco rdcan lawf

ul ly pos se ss a fi rearm

(an d t en s o f m il li on s d o) . A la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer wh o g et s i nt o a n a fte r-h ou rs di sp ut e with h er d om es ti c pa rtn er tha t t rag ic al ly escal at es in to a sh oo ti ng do es no t ac t u nd er co lo r of law
m erel y be cau se th e weap on us edis th e fi rearm th e o ffi cer c arri es on du ty. As fo r th e h an dc uf

fs , th e la w do es no t re st ric t p os se ss io n o f th em to law en fo rcem en t of fic ers . In an y

ev en t, t he re i s n o re as on to be li ev e th atCo ll ie r wou ldno t h av e do ne , or b een ab le to do , whatsh e d idto Bu tl er wi th ou t h er h an dc uf fs . They were in ci de nt al , no t es se nt ia l, t o h is de te nt io n. Inth e Tarp le y

cas e, by con tra st , th e d efen da ntde pu ty use d h is po si ti on an d
au th or it y to ass au ltan d i nt im id at e th e v ic ti m . He pl an ne d t he ass au ltwit h a no th er de pu ty whi le at t he sh eri ff’s o ffi ce. Tarp le y , 94 5 F .3dat 8 08 . He enl is te d t ha t ot he r de pu ty’ s h el p i n c arrying ou t t he ass au lt , andhe us edlaw en fo rcem en t ve hi cl es to acco m

pl is h h is go al s. Id . Duri ng th e as saul t h e rep eat ed ly rem in de d th e v ic ti m

th athe was alaw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer a ndev ento ldth e m anth at be cau se he was a n o ffi cer h e co ul d g etaway wit h s ho ot in g a ndki ll in g h im . Id. (“ He rep eat ed‘ I’ll k il l you. I’m a co p. I ca n.’”). Co ll ie r, un li ke Tarp le y , di d n ot us e h er p os it io n a ndau th or it y to pl anth e d et en ti on an d a ss au ltof the vi ct im ; s he di d n oten li stth e ai d o f an ot he r of fic er i n h er m is co nduc t; sh e d idno t re pe at ed ly 14 Case: 11-13933 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 14 of 17rem in d t he vi ct im th atsh e was a la w enf

or cem en t o ffi cer; sh e d idno t b oa stto hi m th atas a n o ffi cer s he co ul d g etaway wit h k il li ng hi m . The o nl y othe r pe rs on who se he lp Co ll ie r so ug htas t he ev en ts un fo ld edwas h er h us band , andth ere i s n o al le ga ti on th athe was alaw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer. When Bu tl er l eft , Col li er d idno t fo ll ow h im

in a la w enf

or cem en t v eh ic le —t he re i s n o a ll eg at io n t ha t s he ev enha d
on e—o r rad io an ot he r of fic er t o fo ll ow Bu tl er i n t ha t o th er o ffi cer’s o ffi ci al
ve hi cl e. The all eg at io ns are t ha t Co ll ie r warn edBu tl er tha t i f he rep orte d wh atha d happ en edsh e wou ld , in effe ct , li e ab ou t i t i n arep ort o f he r own or f il e ch arg es ag ai ns t Bu tl er fo r tr es pa ss in g o n h er p ro pe rty. Butan y pri va te cit iz encan subm it a rep ort t o l aw en fo rcem en t an d s eekcri m in al ch arg es ag ai ns t an ot he r pe rs on . Cf. Fl a. St at . § 8 17 .49 (pr ov id in g t ha t i t i s a m is de m ean orto co nv ey “ to an y law
en fo rcem en t o ffi cer f

al se in fo rm at io n o r rep orts co nc ern in g t he all eg ed
co m m is si on of any crim e u nd er [Fl or id a la w] , kn owi ng su ch in fo rm at io n o r rep ort to be fal se , in th atno su ch cri m e h adactua ll y be enco m

m it te d” ). A § 1 98 3 d efen dantwho ab us es th e p owe r an d autho rit y gi ve n t o h er b y

th e st at e act s u nd er co lo r of

st at e la w. See Gri ffi n v . Cit y of Op a-Lo ck a, 26 1 F .3d 12 95 , 13 03 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ); Un it edSta te s v . Hou se , No. 1 0– 15 91 2, — F.3d—, 20 12 W L 23 43 66 5, at*1 8 (1 1t h C ir. J un e 2 0, 2 01 2) . “ Wha t [§ 19 83 ] se ek s t o 15 Case: 11-13933 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 15 of 17pr ev en t i s t he ‘ [m ]isu se of p owe r, po ss es se d b y vi rtu e o f st at e la w andm ad e po ss ib le on ly becau se th e wro ng do er i s cl ot he d wi th th e au th or it y of s ta te law . . . .’ ” Dun woo dy Hom eo wne rs Ass ’n, Inc . v. DeKal b C nty ., Ga., 88 7 F .2d14 55 , 14 60 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Cla ss ic , 31 3 U.S. 2 99 , 32 6, 6 1 S.Ct . 10 31 , 10 43 (19 41 )). As we h av e rec en tl y ha d o ccas io n t o re it erat e, anactis effe ct edun de r co lo r of

law “ if i t i s ef

fect edby a law en fo rcem en t o ffi cer a ct in g ‘und er p ret en se of l aw.’” H ou se , 20 12 W L 23 43 66 5, at*1 8 (q uo ti ng Scre ws, 3 25 U.S. at 1 11 , 65 S.Ct . at 1 04 0)
. There was am is us e o f of fic ia l p owe r an d aut ho rity 8 in th e Tarp le y

cas e whe re the de pu ty actedun de r pr et en se of l aw, bu t n otin th is
cas e. As the di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y st at ed : “ Co ll ie r was anan gry pa ren t wh o happ en edto be in un ifo rm , hav e h an dc uf fs , anda fi rearm , whi chsh e u se d fo r th e pr iv at e en ds of a ss au lt in g a ndsca rin g ay ou ng m ansh e cau gh t i n b edwit h h er daug ht er.” Wha t s he di d t o B ut le r was no t “ m ad e p os si bl e o nl y be cau se [sh e was ] 9 cl ot he d wi th th e au th or it y of s ta te law.” Du nwo od y Hom eo wne rs Ass ’n, 88 7 F .2d at14 60 . Any

ot he r an gry

paren t wi th a fi rearm

in th e h ou se co ul d h av e d on e wha t Co ll ie r di d.
The House caseinvolved “under color of la

w” f or purpose s of a pr osecution under 18 8 U.S.C. § 242 but, as we have alre ady noted, the phra se has the sa me meaningthere as it does in § 1983. See n.6 supra
. One might technica lly

quibble that Colli er did not quite catch B utler “in be d” with her 9 daughter, but she ve ry

nearly did and the district cour

t’s point is nonetheless valid. 16 Case: 11-13933 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 16 of 17The am en de d c om pl ai ntan d B ut le r’s br ie fs lea ve no do ub t t ha t h e fee ls
m is tre at ed , andwit h wh atap pe ars to be so m e jus ti fic at io n. If the all eg at io ns are tru e, Co ll ie r’s tre at m en t o f Bu tl er was ba dd er tha n o ldKin g Ko ng an d m ean er th ana jun kyard d og . She m ig htev enha ve act edli ke th e m ean es t h un k o f wom an an y bo dy hadev er s een . Sti ll , th e fac t t ha t t he m is tre at m en t was m ean do es no t
m ean th atth e m is tre atm en t was un de r co lo r of law. Be cau se th e al le ge d
m is tre atm en t o f Bu tl er was no t i nf li ct edun de r co lo r of

law, t he di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y di sm is se d h is § 1 98 3 c la im s. Bu tl er wi ll ha ve to see k h is rem ed ie s u nd er st at e la w andin st at e co urt. AFFIRMED. 1 0

Be cause we c onclude that Collier did not act unde r color of state law, w e do not addr ess 1 0 Sheriff B radsha

w’s alter native arguments in support of the district court’s judgment g ranting both defe ndants’ motions to dism iss Butler’ s § 1983 claims. 17 Case: 11-13933 Date Filed: 07/06/2012 Page: 17 of 17