FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 9, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 95 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -0 35 84 -CC

ALEXIS ANTON IO W HITE, Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us THE CITY OF ATL ANTA, a Mu ni ci pa l Co rp or at io n o f th e St at e o f Geo rg ia , d.b .a. Atl an taPo li ce Dep art m en t, SCOTT E. DUN CAN, Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees , JOHN DOE 1, etal., Defen da nt s.__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 9, 2 01 1) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Alex is Whi te ap pe al s t he su m m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t h is co m pl ai ntab ou t t he vi ol at io n o f hi s ci vi l ri gh ts by the Cit y of At la nt a an d Off

ic er Sc ot t E. Dun can . Dun can in te rv ie wedWhi te aft er h e h adco ns pi redwith t hr ee co rruptpo li ce of fic ers , Greg g J un ni er, J as on Sm it h, an d Art hu r Tes le r, to co rro bo rat e a fal se affi da vi t an d t o c on ceal th ei r un fo un de d s earc h o f a h om e fo r drug s t ha t re su lt edin th e d eat h o f ho m eo wne r Kathryn J oh ns to n. Whit e co m pl ai ne d t ha t h e was fal se ly im pr is on eddu rin g Du nc an ’s in te rv ie w, 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3, an d t ha t t he off ic ers an d th e Ci ty con sp ire d t o c oe rce Whi te to co nc eal th e il le ga l ac ti vi ti es , id . § 1 98 5( 2) , an d v io la te d s ta te law. Aft er the di st ric t co urt d is m is se d J un ni er, Sm it h, an d Tesl er, Du nc anan d t he Cit y m ov edforsu m

m ary jud gm en t. The di stric t co urt ru le d t ha t Whi te fai le d t o e st ab li sh th athe was fa ls el y im pr is on edor t ha t Du nc an orth e Ci ty w ere p art ie s t o a n i ll eg al co ns pi racy, andth e d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d wit ho utpre

jud ic e Whit e’s cl ai m s u nd er s ta te law. We affirm . 2Whi te arg ue s t ha t a g enui ne factua l d is pu te ex is ts ab ou t wh ethe r he was

fal se ly im pr is on edby D un can , bu t Whi te ’s tri al tes ti m on y co nt rad ic ts hi s arg um en t. Du rin g Tes le r’s tri al , Whi te tes ti fie d tha t h e ag reedto m eetDun can an d cl im be d i nt o h is ve hi cl e b ecau se he di d n otwantto be see n “ ta lk in g t o t he po li ce” be cau se “ itis n’t s om ethi ng y oudo .” Whi te arg ue s t ha t h e was un ab le to esc ap e fro m Dun can ’s veh ic le , bu t Whi te tes ti fie d t ha t h e was “ jus t as k[ ed ] . . . que st io ns ” reg ard in g t he dru g t ran sa ct io n a t M rs . Jo hn st on ’s ho us e dur in g t he “ ap pr ox im at el y ei gh t m in ut es ” th athe co nt en ds he was wro ng fu ll y de ta in ed . Whi te als o arg ue s t ha t a g enui ne factua l d is pu te ex is ts ab ou t wh ethe r Dun can co ns pi redto vi ol at e h is civ il rig ht s, b utWhi te fai le d t o s ub m itan y ev id en ce t ha t Du nc anev enkn ew of th e al le ge d c on sp ira cy . Whi te ass um es th at Dun can was i nv ol ve d b as edonev id en ce tha t t he co ns pi rat or s’ supe rv is or , Lt. St acy G ib bs , warn edoff

ic ers be fo re fi el d i ns pe ct io ns to “ cl ean ou t” th ei r de sk s an d p ol ic e v eh ic le s; Gib bs di sp at ch edDun can to qu es ti on Whi te ; J un ni er in st ru ct edWhi te ho w to actwhen in te rv ie wedby D un can ; Sm it h g av e Whit e’s co nt actin fo rm at io n t o Du nc an ; Du nc anin si st edth atWhi te vi ew a p ho to gr ap hi c li ne -up a t t he po li ce s ta ti on be fo re h e m etwith Ag en t Eri c Deg ree o f th e Bu reau of Alco ho l, To ba cco , andFir earm s; an d Du nc anch as edWhi te aft er h e fl edDun can ’s ve hi cl e en rou te to th e p ol ic e st at io n. Whit e co nt en ds th at“ a rat io na l t rie r of fact 3m ig htin fer” fro m th es e fac ts th at“ Dun can was aware o f th e il le ga l g oa ls of t he co ns pi racy” and“ sh aredth e p ur po se of t he co ns pi racy,” bu t Whi te ’s pu rp orte d

“ ‘evi de nc e,’ con si st in g o f on e sp ecu la ti ve in fere nc e h eap edup onan ot he r, [is ] en ti rel y in su ffi ci en t” to est ab li sh th atDun can joi ne d t he co ns pi racy. Jo se nd is v. W al l To W al l Re si de nc e Rep ai rs Inc ., No. 09 -1 22 66 , sl ip op . at 5 0 (1 1th C ir. No v. 17 , 20 11 ). Viewedin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Whi te , th e rec or d e st ab li sh es th at Gib bs was aco rruptsupe rv is or , th e co rruptoff ic ers pre pa redWhi te to m eetwith Dun can , andDun can qu es ti on edWhi te an d t he n p ur su eda m at eri al witne ss to co m pl et e h is in ve st ig at io n. Whi te ch al le ng es on two gro un ds th e jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e Ci ty, bu t b ot h of hi s g ro un ds lac k m eri t. Fi rs t, Whit e arg ue s t ha t the po li ci es of t he Cit y cau se d th e “ co ns pi ra[t or s] to vi ol at e [h is ] ci vi l ri gh ts ,” bu t Whi te fai le d t o p ro vi de an y

“ ‘dire ctcau sa l l in k b etween ’” the po li ci es reg ard in g arres t quo ta s an d a ccep ta nc e of fab ric at edwarran ts an d t he all eg edco erci on by the co rruptoff ic ers , Sno w ex rel . Sno w v. Ci ty of Ci tro ne ll e, Ala., 4 20 F.3d12 62 , 12 71 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ti ng Cit y

of C an to n v . Harri s, 4 89 U.S. 37 8, 3 85 , 10 9 S . Ct. 1 19 7, 1 20 3 (1 98 9) ). Seco nd , Whi te arg ue s t ha t t he Cit y is li ab le un de r st at e law, bu t t he di st ric t co urt d ecl in edto ex erci se supp le m en ta l ju ris di ct io n o ve r th is arg um en t an d Whi te do es no t ch al le ng e th atde ci si on . 4Whi te m ak es th ree o th er ar gu m en ts , all of wh ic h a re fri vo lo us . Firs t, Whit e

li st s as anis su e th atth e “ in tra co rp or at e co ns pi racy do ctrin e d oe s n otap pl y to cl ai m s ar is in g u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. Se ct io n 1 98 5( 2) ,” bu t Whi te fai ls to id en ti fy an adve rs e ru li ng by the di stric t co urt o n t hi s i ss ue . See Fed . R. App . P. 28 (a)( 9) . Seco nd , Whi te arg ue s t ha t Du nc anwas n oten ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y , bu t t he di st ric t co urt d idno t re ach th atis su e b ecau se itde te rm in edth atWhi te fai le d t o pr oduc e an y

ev id en ce tha t “ Dun can reac he d a n a gr eem en t wi th ” th e th ree c orrupt po li ce o ffi cers . Thir d, Whi te arg ue s t ha t Dunc anwas n oten ti tl edto off ic ia l imm un it y forhi s al le ge d v io la ti on s o f st at e la w, bu t Du nc ando es no t ch al le ng e th e di sm is sa l wi th ou t p reju di ce o f th es e cl ai m s. W e AFFIRM th e su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Dun can an d t he Cit y .

5