FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT MAY 21, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15375 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 2 2 8 5 4 - CV - PCH V I C T O R G . B A X T E R , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s W A D I E C R A W F O R D , s u e d in h is in d iv id u a l a n d o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 21, 2007) B efo re W IL S O N , P R Y O R an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: V i ct or B axt er , a f

eder al pri soner procee di ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ctB ivensv. Six Unkn own A g entsof F e d. B ure a

u o f N arc oti c s, 40 3 U .S. 38 8, 91 S.Ct . 1 1999, 29 L .Ed.2d 619 (1971). 2 c ourt ’ s gr a ntof

s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof W a di e C r aw f

or d, aS pe c i a l A ge nt o f th e U n it ed S tates D ru g E n fo rc em en t A d m in istratio n (“D E A ”) , i n B ax ter’s Bi v e n s a c t i o n . Fo rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w , w e a f

f i rm. 1 I . Ba c k g r o und I n N o v e m b e r2 0 0 2 , B a x te rw a s c h a r g e d in as e v e n - c o u n t in d ic tm e n t w ith di stri bu t i ng atl ea stfi ve gram s of c ra ck cocai ne on A ug ust21 , 20 02 (C ou nt1); di stri bu t i ng atl ea stfi ve gram s of c ra ck cocai ne on A ug ust29 , 20 02 (C ou nt2); m ai nt ai ni ng prem i se s l ocat ed at26 45 N . W . 21 stA venu e, O akl and P ark, F l ori da, f orthe purpos e of

di s tr i but i ng c r a c k c oc a i ne f r om appr oxi m a t e l y A ugus t21, 2002 t o O c t obe r9, 2002 ( C ount3) ; pos s e s s i ng w i th the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e a tl e a s tf i ve g r a m s o f c r a c kc o c a in e o n O c to b e r9 , 2 0 0 2 ( C o u n t 4 ) ; p o s s e s s in g w ith th e in te n t to di stri bu t e c ocai ne on O ct ob er9, 20 02 (C ou nt5); bei ng a f el on i n p osse ss i on of a f i r e a rm ( C ount6) ; a nd pos s e s s i ng af i r e a rm i n f

urthe r a nc e of

adrug- tr a f

f i c ki ng c r im e ( C o u n t 7 ) . B ef ore tri al , B axt ertw i ce m ov ed t o sup pres s the evi dence s ei ze d d uri ng an O c to b e r9 , 2 0 0 2 s e a r c h o f h is r e s id e n c e , lo c a te d a t 2 4 6 5 N .W . 2 1 s t A v e n u e in O akl and P ark, F l ori da. D uri ng the se ar ch, l aw enforce m entagent s s ei ze d, i nt er a lia , o n e - h a lf

k ilo g r a m s o f

p o w d e rc o c a in e , ac r a c k - c o c a in e c o o k ie w e ig h in g 2 4 .13

gr a m s , a nd al oa de d r e vol ve r . I n both of hi s m ot i ons , B a xt e rf

oc us e d pr i m a r i l y on th e f o llo w in g s ta te m e n ts f

r o m C r a w f

o r d ’s w a rr a n t a f

f id a v it: O n A u g u s t2 1 , 2 0 0 2 , [ BA X TER] s o l d ap p r o x i ma t e l y 1 5 g r a ms of cr ac k cocai ne t o an u nd er cover D E A S peci al A gent(her ei naft er “ unde r c ove ra ge nt ” ) i n apubl i c a r e ai m m e di a t e l y a dj a c e ntt o 2645 N .W . 2 1 s t A v e n u e , O a k la n d P a rk , F lo r id a . . . . O n A u g u s t2 9 , 2 0 0 2 , [ BA X TER] s o l d ap p r o x i ma t e l y 4 0 g r a ms of cr ac k cocai ne t o the un derc ov eragent . [B axt er ] supp l i ed the cr ac k coca i ne pu rc hase d b y the un derc ov eragentt o a confi dent i al source in s id e th e ta r g e t lo c a tio n [ 2 6 4 5 N .W . 2 1 s t A v e n u e ]. . . . A c c o r d in g to B r o w a r d C o u n ty p r o p e rty r e c o r d s , 2 6 4 5 N .W . 21s tA ve nue , O a kl and P a rk, F l or i dai s ow ne d by J . V . B A X T E R a nd L i l l i an B A X T E R . O n S ept em ber 18, 20 02 , the U . S . P ost al S ervi ce i nd i ca t ed that[B A X T E R ] re ce i ves U . S . m ai l atthe t ar get r e s id e n c e . . . . O n O ct ob er3, 20 02 , B A X T E R w as cont ac t ed atthe t ar get l oc a t i on a nd a gr e e d t o s e l l 1⁄2 ki l ogr a m of c oc a i ne hy dr oc hl or i de ( p o w d e r ) to th e u n d e r c o v e ra g e n t. A rr a n g e m e n ts w e r e m a d e to o b ta in th e c o c a in e f

r o m B A X T E R o n W e d n e s d a y , O c to b e r9 , 2 0 0 2 . B A X T E R agre ed thatthe sa l e w ou l d t ake pl ac e a ta l ocat i on other th a n th e ta r g e t r e s id e n c e b e c au s e th e u n d e r c o v e ra g e n t f e lt un com fort abl e bri ng i ng a l ar ge am ou ntof ca sh ($13 , 00 0) t o the ar ea ar ou nd 26 45 N . W . 21 stA ve. , O akl and P ark, F l ori da. B A X T E R w as nott ol d e xa c t l y w he r e the s a l e w oul d t a ke pl a c e . A l though the l oc a t i on ha s notbe e n f

i na l i z e d, B A X T E R i ndi c a t e d tha the w oul d be r e a dy t o c om pl e t e the tr a ns a c t i on on W e dne s da y , O c t obe r9, 2002. In hi s f i rs tm ot i on , B axt eral l eged thatthe fa ct s i n the w arrantaf fi davi tw er e s t al e, b e c au s e th e c o c a in e s a le s o n A u g u s t 2 1 s t a n d A u g u s t 2 9 th d id n o t p r o v id e p r o b ab le ca u se to se ar ch h is re sid en ce so m e s ix w ee k s latero n O cto b er9 th . In B ax ter’s4

s e c ond m ot i on, he a l l e ge d tha tC r a w f or d m a de m a t e r i a l l y f

a l s e s t a t e m e nt s i n the af fi davi t , for e xam pl e, fa l se l y s t at i ng thatB axt erhad t aken a ca l l fr om an unde r c ove ra ge nt“ a thi s apa rtm e nt ” on O c t obe r3r d. F ol l ow i ng s uppr e s s i on h e a r in g s , th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e d e n ie d b o th m o tio n s . A f te raf iv e - d a y ju ry tr ia l, B a x te rw a s c o n v ic te d o f C o u n ts 1 a n d 5 , b u t w a s a c q u itte d o f th e r e m a in in g c o u n ts . B a xt e rappe a l e d hi s c onvi c t i ons t o thi s c ourt , c ha l l e ngi ng, i nt e ra l i a , the deni al of hi s m ot i on t o sup pres s on the grou nd s thatthe G ov ernm entsubm i tt ed st al e i nform at i on and fal se st at em ent s i n sup po rtof the prob abl e c ause af fi davi t . In a n unpubl i s he d opi ni on, thi s c ourta f f i rm e d B a xt e r ’ s c onvi c t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a xt e r , 03- 16578 ( 11th C i r . J a n. 4) , va c a t e d a nd r e m a nde d on othe rgr ounds by 5 4 4 U . S . 1 0 1 3 , 1 2 5 S . C t . 1 9 9 4 , 1 6 1 L . E d . 2 d 8 4 7 (2 0 0 5 ) (“ B ax t er I”). In so h o ld in g , w e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e a lle g e d m is s ta te m e n ts “w e r e im m a te r ia l.” I d . W e al so concl ud ed thatthe i nform at i on abou tB axt er ’ s A ug ust20 02 coca i ne sa l es at h i s resi d en ce est ab l i sh ed th e o n g o i n g n atu re o f h i s cri m i n al en t erp ri se, so th atth o se sa l es , coup l ed w i th B axt er ’ s O ct ob er3rd agreement t o sel l coca i ne t o an u n d e r c o v e ra g e n t , s u p p o rt e d af i n d i n g o f p r o b ab l e c au s e . I d . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we h e ld th a t th e f

a c ts u n d e r ly in g th e p r o b ab le c au s e d e te rm in a tio n w e r e n o t s ta le . I d . In N o v em b er 2 0 0 5 , B ax t er, p ro ceed i n g p ro se, fi l ed a B i v en s act i o n ag ai n st C r a w f or d, a l l e gi ng tha tC r a w f or d ha d vi ol a t e d hi s F ourth a nd F i f th A m e ndm e ntUnder Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.C t. 2364, 129 L .Ed.2d 383 (1994), a 2 state prisoner

may not bringa damag es claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if a judgment in his favor would imp lic itly

que sti on thevalidity

of hisc onvictio n o r t

hedura tio n o f his s entenc e , “unle ss [he] first achieves a

favorable ter

mination of his available state , or fe deral habea s, opportunities to challeng e the underlying c onviction or sentenc e.” Muha mmad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751, 12 4 S. Ct. 13 03 , 1 30 4, 15 8 L .E d. 2d 32 (2 00 4)(c itingHe c k, 51 2 at 48 7, 11 4 S. Ct. at 23 72 ). This court ha s held that Heck applies with equal forcein a B ivens ac tion filed by a fe deral prisoner. Abella v. Rubino, 63 F.3d 1063, 1065 ( 11th Cir. 1995). 5 r i ght s by i nt e nt i ona l l y m i s l e a di ng af e de r a l m a gi s tr a t e i nt o i s s ui ng aw a rr a nton O c t obe r8, 2002 t o s e a r c h hi s r e s i de nc e . B a xt e rc onc e de d tha the ha d s ol d c oc a i ne t o a g o v ern m en ti n fo rm an to n A u g u st2 1 stan dA u g u st2 9 th ath i s 2 6 4 5 N . W . 2 1 st A venu e r es i dence. A cc ordi ng t o B axt er , ho w ever , these A ug ustcoca i ne sa l es w er e to o r e m o te in tim e to p r o v id e p r o b ab le c au s e to s e a r c h f o r“c o n tr ab a n d ” a t h is re si dence on O ct ob er9th, som e s i x w ee ks l at er . H e a l so al l eged thathe never had a c o n v er sa ti o n w ith a g o v er n m en t ag en t o n O cto b er3 rd an d th at C ra w fo rd ’s m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i on on thi s poi ntw a s m a t e r i a l be c aus e w i thouti t , the r e w oul d not h a v e b e e n p r o b ab le c au s e to is s u e th e s e a r c h w a rr a n t. A ft erperf

orm i ng the re qu i re d scr ee ni ng un der the P ri son L i t i gat i on R ef orm A ct, 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 ), th e m ag istrate ju d g e lib er ally co n stru ed B ax ter’s co m p l ai n tas al l eg i n g F o u rth an d F i fth A m en d m en tv i o l at i o n s. T h e m ag i strat e al so c onc l ude d tha tB a xt e r ’ s c l a i m s w e r e notf or e c l os e d unde rH e c k v. H um phr e y , 512 U . S . 47 7, 11 4 S . C t . 23 64 , 12 9 L . E d. 2d 38 3 (19 94 ), because e ven i f B axt er 2 s uc c e e de d on hi s c l a i m s , hi s “ c onvi c t i on m i ghts t i l l be va l i d due t o the doc tr i ne s of6

i nevi t abl e di sc ov ery, i nd ependentsource , and h arm l es s e rr or. ” T he di stri ctcourt a c c e p te d th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s p r e lim in a ry d e te rm in a tio n a n d a llo w e d th e s u it to pr oc e e d. C r a w f or d f i l e d am ot i on t o di s m i s s the c om pl a i nton the gr ounds tha tthe c l a i m s w e r e va gue a nd c onc l us ory ; he w a s e nt i t l e d t o qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty ; the cl ai m s w er e H ec k-barr ed; and the cl ai m s w er e barre d b y r es j ud i ca t a bec ause they h a d b e e n litig a te d d u r in g B a x te r ’s c r im in a l tr ia l a n d o n d ir e c t ap p e a l o f h is c onvi c t i on. T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge c onve rt e d the m ot i on t o di s m i s s t o am ot i on f or su m m ar y ju d g m en t, an d in fo rm ed B ax ter o f h is rig h t t o re sp o n d to C ra w fo rd ’s m o tio n . B a x te rf

ile d ar e s p o n s e to th e m o tio n , a n d B a x te rf ile d ar e p ly . T he m agi stra t e j ud ge i ss ued a reportre com m endi ng thatthe di stri ctcourt g r a n ts u mma ry j u d g me n ti n f a v o ro f Cr a w f o r d o n th e g r o u n d s th a tBa x t e r ’ s c l a i ms w e r e H e c k- ba rr e d. T he di s tr i c tc ourta dopt e d the m a gi s tr a t e ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on a nd gr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof C r a w f or d. B a xt e rthe n f

i l e d am ot i on fo r reco n si d erat i o n , w h i ch th e d i stri ctco u rtd en i ed . B ax t er n o w ap p eal s. I I . D i s c u s s i on O n app ea l , B axt erar gu es thatthe grantof sum m ary j ud gm entt o C raw ford w as i m prop erbecause the di stri ctcourterre d i n fi nd i ng thathi s c l ai m s w er e pr e c l ude d unde rH e c k. “ W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nt7

de novo, vi e w i ng the f

a c t s — a s s upport e d by the e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d— a nd r e a s onabl e i nf

e r e nc e s f r om thos e f

a c t s i n the l i ghtm os tf

a vor abl e t o the no nm ov i ng party. ” Y ou ng v. C i ty of P al m B ay , 35 8 F . 3d 85 9, 86 0 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) .U nd erH ec k, a pri soner m ayno tbri ng a dam ages ac t i on un der B i vens i f a ju d g m e n t in th e p r is o n e r ’s f a v o rw o u ld n e c e s s a r ily im p ly th e in v a lid ity o f h is c onvi c t i on ors e nt e nc e . A be l l av. R ubi no, 63 F . 3d 1063, 1065 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( h o ld in g th a t H e c kap p lie s b o th to 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 act i on s f i l ed by st at e pri soners and B i vens ac t i on s f

i l ed by fe dera l pri soners ). T hu s, un l es s the pri soner c an d e m o n s tr a te th a t h is c o n v ic tio n o rs e n te n c e h a s a lr e a d y b e e n in v a lid a te d , h is com pl ai ntm ustbe di sm i ss ed. H ec k, 51 2 U . S . at48 7, 11 4 S . C t . at23 72 . B utw hen “th e [ p r is o n e r ’s ] a c tio n , e v e n if s u c c e s s f u l, w ill not

de m ons tr a t e the i nva l i di ty of a n y o u ts ta n d in g c r im in a l ju d g m e n t a g a in s t [ h im ], th e a c tio n s h o u ld b e a llo w e d to proceed, i n the abse nce of s om e other bart o the sui t . ” I d. at48 7, 11 4 S . C t . at 23 72 -73 (em ph as i s i n o ri gi nal , footno t es om i tt ed). F or exam pl e, “ [b] ec ause an i l l e ga l s e a r c h ora rr e s tm a y be f ol l ow e d by ava l i d c onvi c t i on, as uc c e s s f ul [ B i ve ns ] a c t i on f

orF ourth A m e ndm e nts e a r c h a nd s e i z ur e vi ol a t i ons doe s not ne c e s s a r i l y i m pl y the i nva l i di ty of ac onvi c t i on. A s ar e s ul t , H e c k doe s not g e n e r a llyba rs uc h c l a i m s . ” H ughe s v. L ott , 350 F . 3d 1157, 1160 ( 11th C i r . 2003)8

( in te rn a l c ita tio n s a n d f

o o tn o te o m itte d , e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . N e v e rth e le s s , n o t a ll F ourth A m e ndm e ntc l a i m s f i tthi s e xc e pt i on t o H e c k, r a the r , c ourt s “ m us tl ook b o th to th e c la im s r a is e d . . . and t o the s pe c i f

i c of f e ns e s f orw hi c h the . . . c l a i m a nt w as conv i ct ed. ” I d. at11 60 n. 2 (em ph as i s a dd ed). H e r e , B a xt e rc ont e nds tha thi s c l a i m s r e l a t e onl y t o c onduc tf orw hi c h he w a s a c qui tt e d s o tha ts uc c e s s on hi s c l a i m s w oul d notne c e s s a r i l y c a l l i nt o que s t i on th e v a lid ity o f

h is c o n v ic tio n s . W e d is a g r e e . F i rs t , B axt er ’ s a ss ert i on thathi s c om pl ai ntre l at es on l y t o con du ctfor w hi ch h e w a s a c q u itte d is in c o rr e c t, a s th e c o c a in e s e iz e d d u r in g th e s e a r c h o f 2 6 4 5 N .W . 2 1 s t A v e n u e — th e s e a r c h c o n d u c te d p u r s u a n t to th e w a rr a n t B a x te rc h a lle n g e s in the i ns t a nta c t i on— s e rve d a s the ba s i s f orhi s c onvi c t i on on C ount5 ( pos s e s s i ng w ith th e in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e o n O c to b e r9 , 2 0 0 2 ) . S e c o n d , th e f a c tu a l b a s is f orB a xt e r ’ s c l a i m s i n the i ns t a nta c t i on di r e c t l y i m pugns hi s c onvi c t i on on C ount 5. A s s t at ed abov e, i n aff i rm i ng B axt er ’ s c on vi ct i on on C ou nt5, thi s c ou rt e x p r e s s ly r e

je c te d B a x te r ’s a s s e rtio n s th a t th e in f o rm a tio n in th e w a rr a n t a f f id a v it w a s s t a l e a nd tha tC r a w f or d ha d m a de m a t e r i a l m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i ons . B a xt e rI , 03- 16578. W e c onc l ude d tha tthe i nf orm a t i on c ont a i ne d i n the a f f i da vi tr e ga r di ng B axt er ’ s c ocai ne sa l es athi s r es i dence i n A ug ust20 02 , coup l ed w i th h i s O ct ob er 3r d a gr e e m e ntt o s e l l c oc a i ne t o a n unde r c ove ra ge nt , s upport e d af i ndi ng of9

pr obabl e c aus e t o s e a r c h hi s r e s i de nc e on O c t obe r9th. H e nc e , w i thoutthe i nform at i on re gardi ng B axt er ’ s A ug ust20 02 coca i ne sa l es (w hi ch B axt er c ha l l e nge s a s s t a l e ) a nd C r a w f or d’ s a s s e rt i ons r e ga r di ng B a xt e r ’ s c onve r s a t i on w i th the un derc ov eragent(w hi ch B axt erchal l enges a s m at er i al l y f al se ), there w oul d ha ve be e n no pr obabl e c aus e t o s e a r c h hi s r e s i de nc e on O c t obe r9th, a nd the c ha l l e nge d s e a r c h w a rr a ntw oul d notha ve be e n i s s ue d. B utf orthe e xe c ut i on of the se ar ch w arrant , ho w ever , the cocai ne ati ss ue i n C ou nt5 w ou l d n othave been s e iz e d f r o m B a x te r ’s r e s id e n c e , a n d th e r e f o r e , B a x te r ’s c o n v ic tio n o n C o u n t 5 c oul d nots t a nd. A s s uc h, i f B a xt e rw e r e t o s uc c e e d on hi s c l a i m s i n the i ns t a nt a c t i on, he w oul d ne c e s s a r i l y c a l l i nt o que s t i on the va l i di ty of hi s c onvi c t i on on C ount5. T hus , a l though aF ourth A m e ndm e ntc l a i m of i m pr ope rs e a r c h a nd s e iz u r e d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r ilyun derm i ne a c on vi ct i on , se e H ug hes, 35 0 F . 3d at 11 60 , the fa ctual basi s f or B a xter’s cl ai m s do es nece ss ar i l y und erm i ne h is conv i ct i on . A cc ordi ng l y, w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtprop er l y f ou nd that B axt er ’ s c l ai m s are H ec k-barr ed, and the grantof sum m ary j ud gm entt o C raw ford w as prop er . I I I . C on c l u s i on F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e AF F I RM .