FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT MAY 16, 2008 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. 07- 12931 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 4 6 6 2 - C V - A R - S - T MP J I M M Y D O Y L E H I N D M A N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s P A U L H E A L Y , F .B .I . A g e n t in o f

f ic ia l c ap a c ity , J E F F E R Y D O W D Y , F .B .I . A g e n t in o f

f ic ia l c ap a c ity , H E A T H E R S E U B E R T , F .B .I . A g e n t in o f

f ic ia l c ap a c ity , R A N D Y K I N G , D e p u ty , J O H N S H R O P S H I R E , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( M ay 16, 2008)2

B efo re D U B IN A , M A R C U S an dW IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A p p e lla n t J im m yD o y le H in d m a n ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f h is p ro se c om pl a i nta l l e gi ng vi ol a t i ons of hi s c i vi l r i ght s pur s ua ntt o 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a nd B i ve ns v. Si

x U nkno w n N

am ed A gent

s of Fed. B ureau o

f N arcot i cs , 4 0 3 U . S. 38 8, 91 S . C t . 19 99 , 29 L . E d. 2d 61 9 (19 71 ). H e broug htsui tagai nstF eder al Bu r e au o f

I n v e s t i g a t i o n ( “ FBI ” ) a g e n tPau l H e a l y , FBI a g e n tJ e f f e ryD o w d y , FBI A nal ys tH ea ther S eubert , D eputy R andy K i ng of the L i m es t on e C o. P ol i ce D e pa rtm e nt , C ourtR e port e rC hr i s t i naD e c ke r , a nd f i ve othe ri ndi vi dua l s a l l e gi ng v io la tio n s o f

h is F ir s t, F o u rth , F if

th , S ix th , a n dF o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . H in d m a n a lle g e dth a t th e d e f e n d a n ts e n g a g e din a c tiv itie s d e s ig n e dto e lic it f r audul e nts t a t e m e nt s i n or de rt o obt a i n s e a r c h w a rr a nt s f orhi s hous e a nd pe r s on, to a rr e s t h im , a n dto u s e a t h is c r im in a l tr ia l. I . We r e v i e w de no vo the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rof di s m i s s a l pur s ua ntt o 28 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A , ta k in g th e a lle g a tio n s in th e c o m p la in t a s tru e . B o x e rX v . H a rr is , 4 3 7 F .3 d1 1 0 7 , 1 1 1 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 12 7 S . C t . 19 08 (200 7). T h e s ta n d a r d s th a t ap p lyto ad is m is s a l u n d e rF e d .R .C iv .P . 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) ap p lyto ad is m is s a l u n d e r§ 1 9 1 5 A ( b ) ( 1 ) . Jones v . B ock , 5 4 9 U .S . 1 9 9 , ___ , 1 2 7 S . C t.3

9 1 0 , 9 2 0 - 2 1 , 1 6 6 L . E d . 2 d7 9 8 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ; see a l so L ea l v. G eo rg i a D ep 't

o f C o rr. , 254 F . 3d 1276, 1278- 79 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( f i ndi ng tha tthe l a ngua ge i n § 1 9 1 5 A ( b ) ( 1 ) " m irr o r s " th e la n g u a g e in d is m is s a ls u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2 )(B )(i i ) w h i ch "track s" th e l an g u ag e i n F ed . R . C i v . P . 1 2 (b )(6 )). "A com pl ai nti s s ubj ec tt o d i sm i ss al for f ai l ure t o st at e acl ai m i f the al l egat i on s, t aken as tru e, sh o w th e p l ai n t i ff i s n o ten t i t l ed t o rel i ef. " Jones , 5 4 9 U . S. a t__ , 1 2 7 S. C t . a t920. A pl a i nt i f

f ' s f a c tua l a l l e ga t i ons , w he n a s s um e d t o be true , " m us tbe en o u g h t o rai se a ri g h tt o rel i ef ab o v e th e sp ecu l at i v e l ev el . " B el l A t lan t i c Corp. v. T w o m b ly , __U. S . __ , 1 2 7 S . C t . 1 9 5 5 , 1 9 6 5 , 1 6 7 L . E d . 2 d9 2 9 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . An a l l e ga t i on m us tpl aus i bl ys ugge s t , a nd notm e r e l ybe c ons i s t e ntw i th, avi ol a t i on of th e la w . D a v is v . C o c a - C o la B o ttlin gC o . C o n s o l. , 5 1 6 F .3 d9 5 5 , 9 7 4 n .4 3 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng T

w o m b ly , 1 2 7 S . C t. a t 1 9 6 6 ) . W e hol d p ro se pl ea di ng s t o a l es s s tri ng entst andard than p l ea di ng s dra ft ed b ya tto rn e y s , h o w e v e r , a n dc o n s tru e th e m lib e r a lly . B o xer X , 4 3 7 F .3 da t 1 1 1 0 . W e m a ya f

f i rm ade c i s i on of

the di s tr i c tc ourton a nygr ound s upport e d bythe r e c o r d . B ir c o ll v . Mia m i-D a de C o u n ty , 48 0 F . 3d 10 72 , 10 88 n. 21 (11th C i r. 20 07 ). E verypers on w ho , un der c ol or of any s t atut e of any st at e s ubj ec t s or c ause s t o b e su b j ect ed a ci t i zen o f th e U n i t ed S t at es t o th e d ep ri v at i o n o f an y ri g h t s, pr i vi l e ge s ori m m uni t i e s s e c ur e d bythe C ons t i tut i on a nd l a w s , s ha l l be l i abl e t o the4

i nj ured party. 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3. S ec t i on 19 83 do es no tappl y t o federa l ac t ors a c tin g u n d e rc o lo ro f

f e d e r a l la w . D istri ct

o f C o lu m b i a v. Ca rter, 409 U . S . 418, 4 2 4 - 2 5 , 9 3 S . C t. 6 0 2 , 6 0 6 , 3 4 L . E d . 2 d6 1 3 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . B i v e ns pr ovi de s ar e m e dyf or c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n s w h e n f e d e r a l a c to r s a r e in v o lv e d , b u t n o t f e d e r a l a g e n c ie s . B i v e ns , 4 0 3 U .S . a t 3 9 7 , 9 1 S . C t. a t 2 0 0 5 ; F. D . I. C . v. Mey er , 510 U . S . 471, 486, 1 1 4 S . C t. 9 9 6 , 1 0 0 6 , 1 2 7 L . E d . 2 d3 0 8 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . B i v e ns a c t i ons a r e br ought d i rect l y u n d er th e C o n st i tu t i o n w h ere n o al t ern at i v e m eth o d s o f o b t ai n i n g red ress e x is t. H ardison v. C oh en , 37 5 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 64 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). W e have s t at ed th at “[a] B i v e ns ac t i on i s anal og ou s t o § 19 83 sui t s a gai nstst at e and l ocal offi ce rs . ” Sm i th ex r e l. Sm i th v . Si ege lm an , 3 2 2 F .3 d1 2 9 0 , 1 2 9 7 n .1 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . T he S upr e m e C ourtha s he l d tha tac l a i m f orda m a ge s unde r§ 1983 i s not c ogni z abl e w he r e s uc c e s s on the c l a i m w oul d r e nde rthe unde r l y i ng c onvi c t i on or s e n te n c e in v a lid . H

ec k v . H um ph re y , 512 U . S . 477, 486- 87, 114 S . C t . 2364, 2372, 12 9 L . E d. 2d 38 3 (19 94 ). T he sam e hol ds true of a ct i on s broug htun der B i v e ns . A be l la v . R ubi no , 6 3 F .3 d1 0 6 3 , 1 0 6 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . H ec k d o e s n o t g e n e r a lly b a rc la im s u n d e rth e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t f o ra n ille g a l s e a r c h , b u t it c a n b a ras u it w h e r e th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t c la im w o u ldn e g a te a n e le m e n t o f th e o f f e n s e . H u g h e s v . L o tt , 3 5 0 F .3 d1 1 5 7 , 1 1 6 1 , 1 1 6 0 n .2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . I n H ec k , the S up re m e C ou rtno t ed that§ 1 98 3 cre at ed a s peci es of t ort5

liab ilitya n dth a t a n a ly z in g ac la im is s im ila rto a n a ly z in g th e u n d e r ly in g to rt. H ec k , 512 U . S . a t483, 114 S . C t . a t2370- 71. I n H ec k , the S up re m e C ou rtl i kened the sui tati ss ue i n thatca se t o o ne for m al i ci ou s prose cut i on , and n ot ed that pe rm i tt i ng ac onvi c t e d c r i m i na l de f e nda ntt o pr oc e e d w i th am a l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on c la im w o u ldp e rm it ac o lla te r a l a tta c ko n th e c o n v ic tio n th r o u g h ac iv il s u it. I d. at 4 8 4 , 1 1 4 S. Ct . a t2 3 7 1 . I n th e i n t e r e s to f f i n a l i tya n dc o n s i s t e n c y , th e Su p r e me C o u rt h a s g e n e r a llyd e c lin e dto e x p a n do p p o rtu n itie s f o rc o lla te r a l a tta c k . I

d. I n A b e lla , the pl ai nt i ff

brou gh ta s ui tun der B i v e ns a ga i ns tva r i ous defe nd ant s i ncl ud i ng fe dera l j ud ges, U . S . C ust om s and D E A offi ci al s, court r e p o rte r s a n do th e r s a n da lle g e dth a t th e d e f e n d a n ts c o n s p ir e dto c o n v ic t h im f a ls e lyb yf

ab r ic a tin g te s tim o n ya n do th e re v id e n c e a g a in s t h im in v io la tio n o f h is F if th , S ix th a n dE ig h th A m e n d m e n t R ig h ts . A b e lla , 63 F . 3d a t1064 . W e hel d that A b e lla ’s c la im s r e s te do n th e c o n te n tio n th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts u n c o n s titu tio n a lly c ons pi r e d t o c onvi c thi m of c r i m e s he di d notc om m i tand j udgm e nti n f a vorof h im o n th e s e c la im s w o u ldn e c e s s a r ilyim p lyth e in v a lid ityo f h is c o n v ic tio n . I

d. at 1 0 6 5 . B e c aus e s uc c e s s on H i ndm a n’ s c l a i m s w oul d ne c e s s a r i l yr e s ul ti n the i nv al i di ty of hi s c on vi ct i on , w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed as b arred b y H

ec k c l a i m s 1 - 25 a nd 27 - 40 .6 II . “ W e rev i ew st an d i n g d et erm i n at i o n s de no vo . ” T anne rA dv e r . G r oup, L .L .C . v . Fa

y e tte C o u n ty, G e o r

g ia , 45 1 F . 3d 77 7, 78 4 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ) ( e n banc ).

“ A pl ai nt i ff

w ho i nv ok es the j uri sdi ct i on of a f eder al courtbear s the bu rden t o s how [ the C ons t i tut i ona l l i m i t a t i ons on s t andi ng: ] ‘ ( 1) a n i nj uryi n f a c t , m e a ni ng an i nj ury thati s c on cr et e and part i cul ar i ze d, and actual or i m m i nent , (2) acausal c onne c t i on be tw e e n the i nj urya nd the c aus a l c onduc t , a nd ( 3) al i ke l i hood tha tthe i n j u ry w i l l b e red ressed b y a fav o rab l e d eci si o n . ' " T anne rA dv e r . G r oup , 451 F . 3d at79 1 (ci t at i on om i tt ed). B e c au s e Hi n d m a n d i dn o ta s s e rtav i o l a t i o n o f h i s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t s , we c o n c lu d e th a t h e d idn o t h a v e s ta n d in g to b r in g c la im 2 6 f o rav io la tio n o f

h is a c q u a in ta n c e ’s r ig h t to p r iv a c y . II I. H i nd m an ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o con si der hi s c l ai m that D ec ker, the courtre po rt er , defr auded h i m ou tof $8 9. 00 and i nt ent i on al l y del i vere d af a ls e tr a n s c r ip t o f

th e A p r il 2 0 0 6 h e a r in g . U n d e rth e C o u rt R e p o rte rA c t, 2 8 U .S .C . § 7 5 3 ( b ) , a ll p r o c e e d in g s in cr i m i nal ca se s m ustbe re corded verbat i m . 28 U . S . C . § 7 53 (b). P ri soners have a r ig h t o f a c c e s s to th e c o u rt f

ile s o f th e iru n d e r ly in g c r im in a l p r o c e e d in g s b u t th is7

ri gh tdo es no tatt ac h u nt i l a pri soner has m ade ashow i ng thatsuch fi l es ar e ne c e s s a ryt o the r e s ol ut i on of a n i s s ue ori s s ue s he ha s pr e s e nt e d i n anon- f r i vol ous p e n d in g c o lla te r a l p r o c e e d in g . H ans e n v . U

. S. , 9 5 6 F .2 d2 4 5 , 2 4 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) . T h e n o rm al rem ed y fo r a v i o l at i o n o f 7 5 3 (b ) i s rev ersal an da n ew tri al i f th ere i s a s h o w in g o f

ap r e ju d ic ia l e f

f e c t o n ap p e a l. See W

hi te v . State of

Fla. D e pt. of C orr e c t i ons , 9 3 9 F .2 d9 1 2 , 9 1 4 n . 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) . T he F e de r a l T ort s C l a i m A c t( “ F T C A ” ) pr ovi de s al i m i t e d w a i ve rof s ove r e i gn i m m uni tym a ki ng the U ni t e d S t a t e s l i abl e f ori nj ury“ c aus e d bythe n e g lig e n t o rw r o n g f

u l a c t o ro m is s io n o f

a n ye m p lo y e e o f

th e G o v e rn m e n t w h ile ac t i ng w i thi n the sc op e of hi s off i ce or em pl oym ent , ” und erci rc um st ance s w here the U ni t ed S t at es , i f apri vat e per son, w ou l d b e l i abl e t o the cl ai m anti n acc ordance w ith th e la w o f

th e p la c e w h e r e th e a c t o ro m is s io n o c c u rr e d . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 6 ( b ) . U nde r§ 2680( h) , how e ve r , anum be rof c l a i m s a r e e xe m pt e d f

r om the w a i ve rof s ove r e i gn i m m uni tyi nc l udi ng thos e a r i s i ng outof m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i on, de c e i t , or in te r f e r e n c e w ith c o n tr a c t r ig h ts . J BP Ac q u is i t i o n s , LP v . U . S. ex r e l. F. D . I

. C. , 224 F .3 d1 2 6 0 , 1 2 6 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . R egar dl es s of w hether the di stri ctcourtexpl i ci t l y or i m pl i ci t l y c on si dere d thi s c l ai m , the cl ai m i s due t o b e di sm i ss ed because H i nd m an fa i l ed t o st at e a c l a i m . N e i the rof

H i ndm an’ s c l a i m s r e gar di ng D e c ke rs upportaf e de r a l c aus e of8

a c tio n . W ith o u t ab a s is f o rac o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n , H in d m a n c a n n o t s ta te ac la im un der B i v e ns . M o reo v er, H i n d m an can n o tsu p p o rta cl ai m u n d er § 1 9 8 3 b ecau se he a l l e ge d tha tD e c ke rw a s af e de r a l a c t or , notas t a t e a c t or . A c c or di ngl y , the d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dth is c la im . I V.

“ We r e v i e w de no vo qu es t i on s c on ce rni ng j uri sdi ct i on . ” W i l l i am s v . Chatm an , 5 1 0 F .3 d1 2 9 0 , 1 2 9 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . W e a r e “o b lig a te dto in q u ir e in to s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on s u a s p o n te w henever i tm aybe l ac ki ng . ” B ochese v. T ow n o f P on ce Inlet , 405 F . 3d 964, 975 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . W e ge ne r a l l yr e vi e w the deni al of a m ot i on t o am end a com pl ai ntfor an abu se of di sc re t i on bu tre vi ew q u e s t i o n s o f

l a w de no vo . W

illia m s v . B o a rd

o f R eg e n ts o

f U n iv . S ys . o f G e o r g ia , 47 7 F . 3d 12 82 , 12 91 (11th C i r. 20 07 ). F e d .R .A p p .P . 3 ( c ) r e q u ir e s th a t an o tic e o f ap p e a l “d e s ig n a te th e ju d g m e n t, o r d e ro rp a rt th e r e o f

ap p e a le df

r o m ” a n do r d in a r ilyth e f a ilu r e to ab id e b yth is r e qui r e m e nt“ w i l l pr e c l ude the appe l l a t e c ourtf r om r e vi e w i ng a nyj udgm e ntor order notso spec i fi ed. ” McD ougald v . J e ns on , 78 6 F . 2d 14 65 , 14 74 (11th C i r. 1 9 8 6 ) . W e h a v e lib e r a llya llo w e dap p e a ls f r o m o r d e r s n o t e x p r e s s lyd e s ig n a te d in the not i c e of

appe a l a tl e a s tw he r e the or de rw a s e nt e r e d pr i ort o or c o n te m p o r a n e o u s lyw ith th e o r d e r ( s ) p r o p e r lyd e s ig n a te din th e n o tic e o f ap p e a l.9

I d. A ppe l l a t e R ul e 3( c ) “ r e qui r e s tha tanot i c e of appe a l de s i gna t e a n e xi s t e nt ju d g m e n t o ro r d e r , n o t o n e th a t is m e r e lye x p e c te do rth a t is , o rs h o u ldb e , w ith in the appel l ant ’ s c on t em pl at i on w hen the no t i ce of appeal i s f i l ed. ” B ogle v . O r ange C o u n t y B d. o f Co u n t y C o m m ’rs , 1 6 2 F .3 d6 5 3 , 6 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . B e c aus e the not i c e of

appe a l f a i l e d t o i nc l ude the or de rde ny i ng the s e c ond m ot i on t o a m e nd, w e c onc l ude tha tw e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rthe or de ron ap p e a l. F o rth e a f

o r e m e n tio n e dr e a s o n s , w e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

d is m is s a l. AF F I RME D.