FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A pr i l 26, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 13171 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 2 - 6 1 6 9 7 - C V - K MM L U I S F E L I P E R O D R I G U E Z , J R ., P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s B R O W A R D S H E R I F F 'S O F F I C E , K e n J e n n e , P E R E Z , D e p u ty , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts , T H E L O N , O f

f ic e r , K E L V I N G R E E N L E A F , S g t., D e f e n d a n ts .

________________________ 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

_________________________ ( A p r i l26, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es.Rodrigue z named the followingdefendants in his complaint: the Browa rd Sheriff ’s 1 Offic e Department of Community Control (“Department” ), Sheriff Ken Jenne, and D eputies Gre enle a f, De e , The lon , a nd B everly Pere z. Thedis tric t c ourt dis mis se d th eDepa

rtment, Deputy Gre enleaf, and D eputy

Deefrom the c ase, a

nd later grante d summary judgment in favor of Deputy Thelon. Ac cordingly, the par ties to the instant appeal a re Rodriguez, Sheriff Jenne, and Deputy Perez. 2 P E R C U R I A M: Lu i s Fe l i p e Ro d r i g u e z J r . , aFl o r i d as t a t e p r i s o n e r , f i l e d ap r o s e 4 2 U . S. C. § 1 9 8 3 c o m p la in t a g a in s t B r o w a r d C o u n tyS h e r if f K e n J e n n e a n d D e p u ty B e v e r ly P er ez , al l egi ng , am on g o ther thi ng s, fa l se i m pri sonm ent . In thi s i nt er l ocut ory 1 ap p e a l, J e n n e a n d P e r e z a r g u e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr o n e o u s ly d e n ie d in p a r t th e ir m ot i ons f

ors um m a ry j udgm e nton qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty gr ounds c onc e rni ng R odr i gue z ’ s c om pl a i nt . F orthe r e a s ons s e tf or th m or e f

ul l y be l ow , w e r e ve r s e the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t f

o rJ e n n e a n d P e r e z o n ly a s to R o d ri g u ez’ s § 1 9 8 3 cl ai m o f fal se i m p ri so n m en tan d rel at ed p en d en tst at e cl ai m s. I . Ba c k g r o und R o d r ig u e z ’s c o m p la in t a lle g e d , a m o n g o th e rth in g s , th a t h e w a s f a ls e ly im p r is o n e d in v io la tio n o f h is d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts a n d ap p lic ab le s ta te la w . S pe c i f i c a l l y , he i ndi c a t e d tha the s houl d ha ve be e n r e l e a s e d f r om i m pr i s onm e nt se ven d ay s e ar l i erthan h i s a ctual dat e of r el ea se , w hi ch w as June 6, 20 02 , because, on Janu ary 23, 20 02 , the capi as had b ee n rec al l ed i n cas e num ber 01020850T C 10A , a nd c a s e num be rM M 01000865 ha d be e n nol l e pr oc e s s e d on3

M a y 2 9 , 2 0 0 2 . R o d r ig u e z a ls o s u b m itte d th e f o llo w in g e v id e n c e in s u p p o r t o f h is com pl ai nt : (1) hi s “ bo ok i ng re po rt , ” i ss ued o n January9, 20 02 , w hi ch i nd i ca t ed th a t h e w a s c h a r g e d w ith b a tte ry o n ala w e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e ra n d r e s is tin g a rr e s t, ca se nu m ber 011 38 56 C F 10 A , and d ri vi ng w i th a suspended l i ce nse, ca se nu m ber 01 02 08 50 T C 10 A ; (2) a“ C ou nty C ou rtD i sposi t i on O rderi n and for B row ar d C o u n ty , F lo r id a ,” w h ic h in d ic a te d th a t c a s e n u m b e rM M 0 1 0 0 8 6 5 h a d b e e n n o lle p ro ce ss ed in M ay ; (3 ) a n o rd ero f th e c o u n ty co u rt ju d g e g ra n ti n g R o d rig u ez ’s m o tio n to r e c a ll c ap ia s in c a s e n u m b e r0 1 0 2 0 8 5 0 T C ; ( 4 ) a n o r d e ro f th e c o u n ty courtj ud ge re i nst at i ng the bo nd i n cas e num ber 011 38 56 C F 10 A , w hi ch w as dat ed Janu ary 10, bu tthe courtdi d n oti dent i fythe ye ar ; and (5) three i nm at e gri evance f orm s R odr i gue z f

i l e d, one da t e d M a y 31, 2002, buts i gne d on J une 4, 2002, the se cond dat ed June 1, 20 02 , and the thi rd dat ed June 5, 20 02 , i n w hi ch he i nd i ca t ed thathe w as ent i t l ed t o b e r el ea se d b ec ause hi s bon ds w er e pai d and thatcapi as had b e e n r e c a lle d o n o n e o f

h is c h a r g e s . J e nne a nd P e r e z a ns w e r e d R odr i gue z ’ s c om pl a i nt , de ny i ng hi s a l l e ga t i ons a nd a s s e r t i ng the de f

e ns e of qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty . T he y e a c h f i l e d m ot i ons f

or s um m a ry j udgm e nta nd s ubm i tt e d the f ol l ow i ng e vi de nc e i n s upport . F i r s t , the a f f id a v it o f S e r g e a n t R o b e rt G r e e th a m , a n in v e s tig a to rf o rth e B r o w a r d C o u n ty S heri ff’ s O ff

i ce , O ff i ce of P rofe ss i on al C om pl i ance , i nd i ca t ed thatG re etham4

cond uct ed an i nv es t i gat i on of R od ri gu ez ’ s a l l egat i on of del ay ed re l ea se . G re etham att es t ed that , as a r es ul tof hi s i nv es t i gat i on , he l earned thatR od ri gu ez had att ended a s peci al m agi stra t e hea ri ng on June 4, 20 02 re gardi ng ca se nu m ber 01 02 08 50 T C 10 A . H e i nd i ca t ed that , ac cordi ng t o the Ja i l M anagem entS ys t em (“ JM S ”) , R od ri gu ez ’ s c harge s t atus for c as e num ber 010 20 85 0T C 10 A had b ee n di sm i ss ed on June 5, 20 02 . H e f urther a ss ert ed that , i n R od ri gu ez ’ s har d car d fi l e, he foun d a fa cs i m i l e of Jud ge B erm an’ s orderre ca l l i ng capi as i n cas e num ber 01020850T C 10A , w hi c h or de rw a s da t e d J a nua ry 23, 2002. H e a tt e s t e d tha tthe or de ri ndi c a t e d tha tc ourt e s y c opi e s ha d be e n s e ntt o al a w f i rm , the O f

f i c e of the S t a t e A tt orne y , a nd the C l e rk of the C i r c ui tC our t . H e a l s o i ndi c a t e d tha tthe f a c s i m i l e of

the or de rw a s s e ntt o D onnaT ve ns trup, a n e m pl oy e e a tthe C on fi nem entS t atus U ni t , on June 5, 20 02 . G re etham thu s c on cl ud ed thatthere w as no i nd i ca t i on thatthe B row ar d S heri ff’ s O ff i ce re ce i ved a copy of the order r e c a llin g c ap ia s p r io rto J u n e 5 , 2 0 0 2 , a n dth a t, o n c e it r e c e iv e d th e o r d e r , it r e le a s e dR o d r ig u e z f

r o m c u s to d y o n J u n e 6 , 2 0 0 2 . H e a tta c h e d to h is a f f id a v it a copy of R od ri gu ez ’ s “ i nm at e gri evance f orm ” c on ce rni ng hi s del ay ed re l ea se , w hi ch w as dat ed M ay31 , 20 02 , bu tw as si gn ed on June 4, 20 02 . T he gri evance f orm i ndi c a t e d tha tthe r e s pons e t o R odr i gue z ’ s c om pl a i nt , pr ovi de d on J une 5,The actual dateon the grieva nce f orm is “5/6/02.” However, that date must be an error 2 beca use a response to the c omplaint, which was signed on June 4, 2002, could not have be en responde d to in the proce edingmonth. Serg eant Greetham’s aff idavit supports this conclusion, as it indicates that the response wa s g iven on June 5, 2002. 5 20 02 , st at ed thatR od ri gu ez “ st i l l [had] an op en charge. ” 2 S e c ond, i n J e nne ’ s a f

f i da vi t , he a s s e r t e d tha the di d notknow R odr i gue z , nor d id h e h a v e a n y d ir e c t o rp e r s o n a l k n o w le d g e o f th e a lle g a tio n s c o n ta in e d in R o d r ig u e z ’s c o m p la in t. T h ir d , P e r e z ’s a f f id a v it in d ic a te d th a t s h e d id n o t r e c a ll thatR od ri gu ez evershow ed her any docum ent at i on thatdem on stra t ed thathe w as e n title d to r e le a s e f

r o m c u s to d y . P e r e z f

u r th e ra tte s te d th a t, if

R o d r ig u e z w o u ld have advi se d h erthathe w as ov er du e t o b e r el ea se d, she “ w ou l d h ave i nform ed [her ] se rgea ntand [she] w ou l d h ave a dv i se d M r. R od ri gu ez t o send a w ri tt en re qu es tt o C on fi nem entS t atus as ki ng them t o l oo k i nt o the m att er . ” R o d r ig u e z r e s p o n d e d to J e n n e ’s a n d P e r e z ’s m o tio n s f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, a r gui ng tha tthe B r ow a r d S he r i f f’ s O f f i c e di d r e c e i ve not i c e of the or de rr e c a l l i ng capi as . R od ri gu ez as se rt ed thatthe m agi stra t e j ud ge si gn ed al l hi s order s “ i n o pen courti n frontof the cl erk o f c ou rt s” and thatthe S heri ff had a st af

f of c ou rt l i ai sons, w ho re vi ew ed the j ud ge’ s order s. H ow ever , R od ri gu ez subm i tt ed no new evi dence i n sup po rtof hi s r es po nse. T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge r e c om m e nde d de ny i ng s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o J e nne a n d P e r e z o n q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity g r o u n d s , f in d in g th a t: ( 1 ) th e la w o f th is C ir c u it6

i nd i ca t ed thatan offi ce r c ou l d n otnegl i gent l y i gn ore a n i nm at e’ s c om pl ai nt s that he i s e nt i t l ed t o rel ea se and thata s heri ff coul d b e hel d l i abl e on the basi s of a

“ c ons truc t i ve not i c e ” the ory ; a nd ( 2) the r e w e r e i s s ue s of m a t e r i a l f

a c t“ r e ga r di ng w he n R odr i gue z w a s e nt i t l e d t o r e l e a s e , and w he n the s he r i f f’ s of f i c e w a s a w a r e of i t . ” T he di stri ctcourtadop t ed thatm agi stra t e’ s r eportand recom m endat i on , ov er J e nne ’ s a nd P e r e z ’ s obj e c t i ons . T he c our tf ound tha tthe r e e xi s t e d a n i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o “ w ha te xt e nt , i f a ta l l , D e f

e nda nt s P e r e z a nd J e nne w e r e m a de aw ar e thatR od ri gu ez w as ent i t l ed t o rel ea se on M ay29 , 20 02 . ” T he courtfurther d e te rm in e d th a t P e r e z ’s “b a r e a lle g a tio n ” th a t s h e h a d n o au th o r ity to e f f e c tu a te R o d rig u ez ’s re leas e d idn o t estab li sh th at, h ad sh e r ep o rted R o d rig u ez ’s co m p lain ts, th e p ro p erau th o riti es w o u ldh av e ig n o re d h erre p o rt. A s to Je n n e’s el i gi bi l i ty f

or qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty, the courtfoun d thatthere w as a quest i on of fa ct a s t o w he the rthe or de rr e c a l l i ng c api a s e ve rc a m e t o the a tt e nt i on of P e r e z orJ e nne by w a y of

P e r e z . T hus , the c ourtgr a nt e d J e nne ’ s a nd P e r e z ’ s m ot i ons f or s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in p a rt a n d d e n ie d th e m in p a r t a s to R o d r ig u e z ’s § 1 9 8 3 c la im o f ille g a l d e te n tio n o rf

a ls e im p r is o n m e n t.

I I . D i s c u s s i on Je nn e and P er ez ar gu e on app ea l thatthey w er e e nt i t l ed t o q ual i fi ed im m u n ity b e c au s e th e y a c te d in th e ird is c r e tio n a ry c ap a c itie s a n d d id n o t v io la te7

a n y o f R o d r ig u e z ’s c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . T h e y s p e c if ic a lly as se rtthatthe di stri ctcourterroneou sl y i nt erpret ed thi s C ou rt ’ s pre ce denti n W hi rl v. K ern, 40 7 F . 2d 78 1 (5th C i r. 19 69 ) and K el l y v. C urt i s, 21 F . 3d 15 44 (11th C i r. 19 94 ). W i th regard t o Jenne, as sued i n h i s i nd i vi du al capaci ty, they c on t end that h e d idn o t w o rk in th e B ro w ar d C o u n ty Ja il an d h ad n o k n o w led g e o f R o d rig u ez ’s pr e s e nc e i n the j a i l orhi s r e l e a s e da t e . T he y a r gue tha tthe r e e xi s t s no co n st i tu t i o n al d u ty fo r a sh eri ff, w h o h as n o p erso n al i n v o l v em en ti n i n m at e rel ease deci si on s, rout i nel y t o check on the cust od y s t atus of ea ch i nm at e. T hey f urther m a i nt a i n tha tthe the ory tha tJ e nne , a s s he r i f f , s houl d be c ha r ge d w i th c ons truc t i ve no t i ce of the do cum ent s thatent i t l ed R od ri gu ez t o rel ea se , and m ayhave been see n b y J en n e’s e m p lo ye es , w as n o t clear ly es tab li sh ed as o f th e d ate o f R o d rig u ez ’s in ju ry . T h e y a ls o a s s e rt th a t th e r e c o r d d e m o n s tr a te s th a t th e S h e r if f’s O f f ic e d id no tre ce i ve a c op y of the order re ca l l i ng capi as un t i l June 5, 20 02 , the order i ndi c a t e d tha tthe S he r i f f’ s O f f i c e w a s nots e ntac opy , a nd the or de ri t s e l f di d not di re ctthatR od ri gu ez be re l ea se d. A s t o P er ez , they argue that , even as sum i ng that R od ri gu ez show ed her al l of the do cum ent s thathe bel i eved ent i t l ed hi m t o rel ea se , th o s e d o c u m e n ts d id n o t e s tab lis h o n th e irf a c e th a t R o d r ig u e z w a s e n title d to r e le a s e o n M a y 2 9 , 2 0 0 2 . T h e y a ls o c o n te n d th a t th e la w w a s n o t c le a r ly e s t abl i s he d tha tP e r e z , w ho di d notw ork i n the c onf i ne m e nts t a tus uni t , ha d aJ enne a nd Perez alleg e that they

were performingdiscretionar y functions as sheriff and a 3 deputy of the B rowa

rd County Sheriff’ s Offic e at the time of Rodrigue z’s alleg ed injury . Rodrigue z did notdispute this contention beforethe district court or on a ppeal. Thus, there is no dispute that J enne a

nd Perez were acting in their discretionary capacity duringthe incident at issue. 8 c o n s titu tio n a l d u ty to in v e s tig a te R o d r ig u e z ’s r e q u e s t f o rr e le a s e .

“ W e r evi ew de no vo the l egal basi s f or a di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of sum m ary ju d g m e n t o n q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity , v ie w in g th e f a c ts in th e lig h t m o s t f

a v o r ab le to the pl ai nt i ff

. ” K el l y, 21 F . 3d at15 50 . In order t o st at e acl ai m for r el i ef un der § 1 9 8 3 , “ a p l ai n t i ff m u stsh o w th ath e o r sh e w as d ep ri v ed o f a fed eral ri g h tb y a pe r s on a c t i ng unde rc ol orof s t a t e l a w . ” G r i f

f i n v. C i ty of

O pa - L oc ka , 261 F . 3d 1 2 9 5 , 1 3 0 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . H o w e v e r , “[ t]h e d e f e n s e o f q u a lif ie d im m u n ity c om pl e t e l y pr ot e c t s gove rnm e ntof f i c i a l s pe r f

orm i ng di s c r e t i ona ry f

unc t i ons f

r om sui ti n thei r i nd i vi du al capaci t i es un l es s thei r c on du ctvi ol at es cl earl y e st abl i shed st atut ory or c on st i tut i on al ri gh t s of w hi ch a r ea sonabl e per son w ou l d h ave kno w n. ” C ott on e v. Je nn e, 32 6 F . 3d 13 52 , 13 57 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). 3 In denyi ng Je nn e’ s and P er ez ’ s m ot i on s f or sum m ary j ud gm enton qu al i fi ed im m u n ity g r o u n d s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e lie d o n o u rd e c is io n in K e lly to s u p p o r t its co n cl u si o n th atq u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty o ffered th e d efen d an t s n o p ro t ect i o n b ecau se the r e w a s aque s t i on of

m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o w he the rP e r e z e ve rr e c e i ve d not i c e of the order r ec al l i ng capi as i n R od ri gu ez ’ s c as e. In K el l y, the defendantw as arre st ed9

a n d c h a r g e d w ith p o s s e s s io n o f c o c a in e , b u t tw o d a y s a f te rh is a rr e s t, th e s ta te c r i m e l ab r e port e d tha tthe s ubs t a nc e i n the de f e nda nt ’ s pos s e s s i on w a s not coca i ne. K el l y, 21 F . 3d at15 47 -48. T he cr i m e l ab se ntthe re po rtt o the po l i ce de pa r tm e nt , a nd s pe c i f

i c a l l y t o D e t e c t i ve G i bs on, butthe pr os e c ut or s w e r e not m a de a w a r e of

the r e port . I d. a t1547- 49. O ne y e a ra f t e rK e l l y ’ s a rr e s t , dur i ng w hi c h t i m e he ha d be e n i nc a r c e r a t e d, the pr os e c ut ordi s m i s s e d the c ha r ge , c i t i ng tha tthe s ubs t a nc e w a s notac ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e , a nd K e l l y w a s r e l e a s e d f r om c us t ody . I d. a t1549. K e l l y the r e a f t e rf i l e d a§ 1983 a c t i on a ga i ns tD e t e c t i ve G i bs on a nd tw o othe rde t e c t i ve s , a l l e gi ng f a l s e a rr e s t , m a l i c i ous pe r s e c ut i on, a nd i l l egal det ent i on . Id. T he det ec t i ves m ov ed for s um m ary j ud gm enton qu al i fi ed i m m uni ty gr ounds a nd the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the m ot i on. I d. C o n cern i n g K el l y’ s i l l eg al d et en t i o n cl ai m ag ai n stth e o th er tw o d et ect i v es, w e de t e rm i ne d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n f i ndi ng tha tthe que s t i on of w he n the c r i m e l ab r e portc a m e t o the a tt e nt i on of thos e tw o de t e c t i ve s pr e s e nt e d a n i s s ue of m a te r ia l f

a c t b e c au s e “K e lly p r e s e n te d n o e v id e n c e w h a ts o e v e rth a t th e r e p o r t in que s t i on e ve r‘ c a m e t o the a tt e nt i on’ of [ the tw o de t e c t i ve s ] . ” I d. a t1551 (e m ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). W e thu s hel d thatthe det ec t i ves w er e e nt i t l ed t o q ual i fi ed im m u n ity b e c au s e th e y “h a d n e ith e ra c tu a l k n o w le d g e o f th e r e p o r t n o rac le a r ly e s t abl i s he d duty t o f

e rr e ti tout . ” I d. a t1552. I n s o hol di ng, w e di s c us s e d our10

e a r l i e rde c i s i on i n W hi r l , i n w hi c h as he r i f f’ s of f i c e ha d r e c e i ve d not i c e tha tthe prosec ut or had d i sm i ss ed al l char ges a gai nsta def endant , bu tthe offi ce negl ec t ed to p r o c e s s th e d is m is s a l, le a v in g th e d e f e n d a n t in ja il f

o ra n a d d itio n a l n in e m o n th s . I d. a t1551- 52; s e e a l s o W hi r l , 407 F . 2d a t785- 86. I n W hi r l , w e he l d tha tthe s he r i f f w a s l i abl e f

orf a l s e i m pr i s onm e ntdue t o hi s “ c ons truc t i ve not i c e ” tha tthe p r o s e c u t o rh a d d i s m i s s e d th e c h a r g e s . Wh i r l , 4 0 7 F . 2 d a t7 9 3 . Ho we v e r , we cl ar i fi ed i n K el l y that“ W hi rl do es no tre qu i re po l i ce offi ce rs t o tra ck do w n every l e a d; i tm e r e l y hol ds tha tthe y c a nnotne gl i ge nt l y i gnor e anot i c e s pe c i f i c a l l y s e nt t o the m r e qui r i ng tha tade t a i ne e be r e l e a s e d. ” K e l l y , 21 F . 3d a t1551- 52. A p p ly in g K e lly to th e f a c ts o f th e in s ta n t c a s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr o n e o u s ly d e n ie d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n q u a lif ie d im m u n ity g r o u n d s to J e n n e a n d P e r e z . H er e, as i n K el l y, the courti ncorrec t l y det erm i ned thatan i ss ue of m at er i al fa ct re m ai ned con ce rni ng w hen P er ez and Jenne had n ot i ce of the order re ca l l i ng capi as i n R od ri gu ez ’ s c as e. A care ful re vi ew of the re cord revea l s thatR od ri gu ez never a lle g e d th a t h e s p e c if

ic a lly in f o rm e d P e r e z o rJ e n n e o f h is e n title m e n t to r e le a s e . R od ri gu ez m er el y c l ai m ed thathe w as ent i t l ed t o rel ea se on M ay29 , thathe had fi l ed three i nt ernal gri evances i n the B row ar d C ou nty J ai l , and thathe had in f o rm e d u n n a m e d o f

f ic e r s th a t h e n o lo n g e rh a d c h a r g e s p e n d in g a g a in s t h im . P e r e z d e n ie d th a t s h e h a d e v e rr e c e iv e d n o tif ic a tio n f r o m R o d r ig u e z r e g a r d in g h is11

c u s to d y s ta tu s a n d , in r e s p o n s e , R o d r ig u e z o n ly a r g u e d th a t th e B r o w a r d C o u n ty S he r i f f’ s O f f i c e di d r e c e i ve not i c e of the or de rr e c a l l i ng c api a s be c aus e the m ag i strat e j u d g e si g n ed al l h i s o rd ers “ i n o p en co u rti n fro n to f th e cl erko f co u rt s” a n d th a t th e S h e r if

f h a d as ta f

f o f c o u r t lia is o n s , w h o r e v ie w e d th e ju d g e ’s o r d e r s . O n the s e f

a c t s , e s pe c i a l l y gi ve n tha tR odr i gue z di d notm a ke as pe c i f i c a l l e ga t i on thathe prov i ded n ot i ce di re ct l y t o P er ez , the i nst antca se i s s i m i l art o K el l y i n that the e vi de nc e di d note s t abl i s h tha tP e r e z ha d a c tua l not i c e of the or de rr e c a l l i ng c api a s a nd R odr i gue z ’ s e nt i t l e m e ntt o r e l e a s e on M a y 29, 2002. S e e K e l l y , 21 F . 3d a t 1 5 5 2 . C ons e que nt l y , J e nne c a nnotbe c ha r ge d w i th c ons truc t i ve not i c e thr ough P er ez ’ s kno w l edge because P er ez had n o n ot i ce hers el f. S ee W hi rl , 40 7 F . 2d at 792. M or e ove r , J e nne di d notvi ol a t e ac l e ar l y e s t abl i s he d c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtof R od ri gu ez ’ s due t o h i s c on struct i ve no t i ce of R od ri gu ez ’ s e nt i t l em entt o rel ea se , as gai ned throu gh the B row ar d S heri ff’ s O ff i ce ’ s and the un nam ed offi ce r’ s not i ce f r om R odr i gue z ’ s i nt e rna l gr i e va nc e s , be c aus e , upon r e c e i vi ng the gr i e va nc e s on J une 1 a nd 4, a nd ve r i f

y i ng the ve r a c i ty of

R odr i gue z ’ s a l l e ga t i ons on J une 5, the S h e r if f’s O f f ic e e f f e c tu a te d R o d r ig u e z ’s r e le a s e . S e e id . ( e x p la in in g th a t a s h e r if f’s “d u ty to h is p r is o n e ris n o t b r e a c h e d u n til th e e x p ir a tio n o f ar e a s o n ab le tim e f o rth e p r o p e ra s c e rta in m e n t o f th e au th o r ity u p o n w h ic h h is p r is o n e ris12

det ai ned, ” and ho l di ng thatni ne m on ths w as an un re as on abl e a m ou ntof t i m e) . I n a c c or da nc e w i th K e l l y , a nd ba s e d upon the a l l e ga t i ons a nd e vi de nc e i n the i ns t a ntr e c or d, J e nne a nd P e r e z ne i the rha d a c tua l orc ons truc t i ve know l e dge of R o d r ig u e z ’s e n title m e n t to r e le a s e , n o rd idth e y h a v e “ac le a r ly e s tab lis h e d d u ty to fe rr eti tou t . ” S ee K el l y, 21 F . 3d at15 52 . A s s uch, they w er e e nt i t l ed t o q ual i fi ed i m m uni ty f

r om R odr i gue z ’ s c l a i m tha tthe y i gnor e d hi s r e que s t s f orr e l e a s e a nd th ereb y i l l eg al l y d et ai n ed h i m fo r sev en d ays. In l i g h to f th e fo reg o i n g , w e rev erse the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of s um m a ry j udgm e nta s t o R odr i gue z ’ s § 1983 c l a i m of f a ls e im p r is o n m e n t a n d r e la te d p e n d e n t s ta te c la im s a g a in s t J e n n e a n d P e r e z . RE V E RS E D a n d RE MAND E D.