FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUG 30, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 84 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cv -1 42 25 -DLG SIEGFRI ED G. CHRISTMAN, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us RALPH HOLMES, Inhi s Pe rs on al Cap aci ty Poli ce Offi cer, Fo rt P ie rce P ol ic e Dep t., ALFONSO JOHNSON, Inhi s Pe rs on al Cap aci ty, Pres id en t an d R eg is te redAgen t Will ia m & Jo hn so n In c., HARRY W . BUCKLEY, Pres id en t o f Ja ck so n Hewi ttTax Se rv ic es , Inc ., Defen da nt s- App el le es , MIC HAEL C. YE RINGTON, Inhi s Pe rs on al Cap aci ty, Pres id en t an d C EO Jack so n Hewi ttInc ., Defen da nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st30 , 20 11 )Befo re HULL, W ILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t Jud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Si eg fri edCh ris tm anap pe al s p ro se the di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s 4 2 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 c iv il rig ht s co m pl ai ntforfai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m forrel ie f, pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (6 ). After rev ie w, we affi rm . 1 Inhi s p ro se am en de d c om pl ai nt , Chr is tm anall eg edth at : (1 ) pu rs ua ntto a co nt ractwith Def

en da nt s Al ph on so Jo hn so n a ndHarry Bu ck le y , a fran ch is ee an d th e Pre si de ntof J ack so n Hewi tt , Inc ., resp ect iv el y , Chr is tm anm an ag eda Ja ck so n Hewit t s eas on al tax lo cat io n i n aW al m artan d p rep aredtax returns ; (2 ) be cau se th e Walm artki os k h adli m it edsp ace, C hr is tm anst or edtax reco rd s athi s h om e; (3) on Feb ru ary 4, 2 00 9, Ch ris tm an ’s con tra ctwas m utua ll y term in at edwith the un de rs ta nd in g t ha t the tax fil es wou ldbe pi ck edup fro m hi s re si de nc e o n F eb ru ary 8, 2 00 9; an d (4 ) Defen da nt s J oh ns on an d B uc kl ey ha d aJac ks onHewit t o ffi ce m an ag er fi le a fal se po li ce re po rt a ccu si ng Ch ris tm anof the ft o f tr ad e se cret s an d bu rg lary of ast ru ctur e.

We reviewde novo a district c ourt’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a c laim 1 under Rule 12(b)(6) . Am. United L ife Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043, 1056-57 (11th Cir. 2007). In doing so, w e view thecomplaint in the light most favor able to the plaintiff, a nd acc ept as true a ll of the plaintiff’s we ll-pleade d fac ts. I d. at 1057. 2Ch ris tm an ’s com pl ai ntfurth er al le ge d t ha t: (1) on Feb ru ary 8, 2 00 9, Defen da ntRal ph Hol m es , an o ffi cer wi th th e Fo rt P ie rce P ol ic e Dep art m en t, arre st edCh ris tm anat h is res id en ce, t oo k t he tax fil es witho uta se arch warran t, fil eda frau du le ntarre staffi da vi t an d c ha rg edCh ris tm anwith t he ft o f tr ad e se cret s, bu rg lary of ast ru ctur e, an d re si st in g a n o ffi cer; (2) Offic er Ho lm es di d n ot in ve st ig at e Jo hn so n’s an d B uc kl ey ’s cha rg es with Walm artsec ur it y be fo re arre st in g C hr is tm an ; an d (3 ) th e st at e p ro se cu to r th erea fte r fi le d aNo In fo rm at io n, dr op pi ng all ch arg es witho uta he ari ng or a rrai gn m en t b ecau se “ no ne of t he al le ga ti on s g iv ento th e p ol ic e b y Jac ks on Hewit t ca n b e subs tant ia te d.” Ch ris tm an ’s com

pl ai ntass ert edcla im s o f fal se arre st , m al ic io us pro se cu ti on an d c on sp ira cy

to de pr iv e h im

of h is co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Und er Ru le 12 (b )(6 ), a d is tri ctco urt m ay di sm is s a c om

pl ai ntth atfai ls to st at e a cl ai m

up onwhi ch rel ie f m ay

be gra nt ed . See Fed . R. Civ . P. 12 (b )(6 ). “ In as se ss in g t he su ffi ci en cy

of t he co m

pl ai nt ’s all eg at io ns , we are b ou ndto ap pl y th e pl ead in g s ta nd ardart ic ul at edin Bel l At la nt ic Co rp . v. Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. 5 44 , 12 7 S . Ct. 1 95 5, 1 67 L.Ed.2d92 9 (2 00 7) an d As hc ro ft v . Iqb al , __ _ U.S. _

__ , 12 9 S. Ct . 19 37 , 17 3 L.Ed .2d86 8 (2 00 9) .” Iro nwo rk ers Loca l Un io n 6 8 v . Ast raZen eca P ha rm ., LP, 63 4 F .3d13 52 , 13 59 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Und er thi s st an da rd , th e p la in ti ff’s co m pl ai nt“ m us t . . . con ta in su ffi ci en t fa ctua l m at te r, 3acce pt edas t ru e, to ‘ st at e a cl ai m to rel ie f th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face .’ ” Am . Den ta l As s’n v . Cig naCo rp ., 60 5 F .3d12 83 , 12 89 (11 thCir . 20 10 ) (quo ti ng Bel l Atl an ti c Co rp . v. Twom

bl y , 55 0 U.S. 5 44 , 57 0, 1 27 S. Ct. 1 95 5, 1 97 4 (2 00 7) ). Thi s s ta nd ard“ requi res m or e th anlab el s an d c on cl us io ns , [or ] a fo rm ul ai c reci ta ti on of t he ele m en ts of acau se of a ct io n” to co ns ti tu te a sh ort an d p la in st at em en t o f th e cl ai m

un de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 8 . Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. at 5 55 , 12 7 S . Ct. at19 64 -6 5. “ [T]he te ne t t ha t a c ou rt m us t ac cep t as tru e al l of th e al le ga ti on s co nt ai ne d i n aco m pl ai ntis in ap pl ic ab le to leg al co nc lu si on s.” Ash cro ft v . Iqb al , 55 6 U.S. _ _, 1 29 S. Ct. 1 93 7, 1 94 9 (2 00 9) . 2 Ch ris tm an ’s com

pl ai ntall eg edtwo arre st -rel at edcla im s ag ai ns t Def en da nt Offi cer Ho lm es , nam el y

th atOffic er Ho lm es : (1 ) m ad e fal se st at em en ts in an arre staffi da vi t, an d (2 ) arre st edCh ris tm anwitho uta warra ntor p ro babl e cau se . As a s ta te act or , Offic er Ho lm es is en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y if h e was pe rfo rm in g adi sc ret io na ry fun ct io n a ndth e al le ge d c on du ctdi d n otvi ol at e a cl earl y est ab li sh edst atut ory

or c on st itut io na l ri gh t. See Andujarv. Ro dr ig ue z,

In dismiss ing Christman’s c omplaint, the district court relied upon the “no set of f acts” 2 standard of

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S. Ct . 99, 102 (1957). That standard wa s “re tired” by

the Supreme Court in Twombly . See Am. De ntal Ass’n, 605 F .3d at 1288 (c iting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 563, 127 S. Ct . at 1969). We nonethe less aff irm beca use eve n under the Twombly /I qbal standar d, Christman’s complaint was prope rly dismiss ed. See Powe rs v. United States, 996 F.2d 1121, 1123-24 ( 11th Cir. 1993) (explaining that this Court may aff irm on any ground supported by

the re cord e ven if it was not re lied upon by the district court). 448 6 F .3d11 99 , 12 02 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). The p art ie s d o n otdi sp ut e th atOffic er

Hol m es was p erfo rm in g adi sc ret io na ry fun ct io n. Th us , to de featqu al ifi ed imm un it y , (1) Ch ris tm an ’s com pl ai ntne ed edto all eg e fac ts th at , when vi ewedin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Ch ris tm an , est ab li sh eda co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, an d (2 ) th e co ns ti tu ti on al rig htne ed edto be cle arl y est ab li sh edon th e d at e o f th e al le ge d v io la ti on . Id. at12 02 -0 3. Ch ris tm an ’s com

pl ai ntall eg edth atOffic er Ho lm es eit he r kn owi ng ly or reck le ss ly m ad e fal se st at em en ts in anarres t af fid av it . See Kel ly v. Curti s, 2 1 F .3d 15 44 , 15 54 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (s ta ti ng th atth e Co ns ti tu ti on pro hi bi ts a po li ce o ffi cer fro m m ak in g kno win gl y

or r eck le ss ly fals e st at em en ts in supp ort o f warra nt s) . Howev er, Ch ris tm andi d n otall eg e an y fact s— su ch as wh atfal se st at em en ts Offi cer Ho lm es m ad e, ho w th ey were m at eri al to pro babl e cau se or h ow Offi cer Hol m es kn ew orsh ou ldha ve kn own th ey were fa ls e—t o s up po rt wh atam ou nt ed to a “ fo rm

ul ai c rec it at io n o f th e el em en ts .” See Two m bl y , 55 0 U.S. at55 5, 1 27 S. Ct . at 1 96 5. Th us , Chr is tm an ’s all eg at io n abo utth e arr es t af fid av itis no t en ou gh to st at e a cl ai m . Ch ris tm an ’s com

pl ai ntals o a ll eg edth atOffic er Ho lm es arre st edhi m ba se d on a cri m in al co m

pl ai ntfil edby Jack so n Hewi tt ’s off ic e m an ag er tha t fa ls el y accu se d C hr is tm anof b ur gl ary of a st ru ctur e (p res um ab ly the ki os k a t Walm art ) 5an d t he ft o f tr ad e se cret s (p res um ab ly m at eri al inth e ta x fi le s atCh ris tm an ’s

res id en ce). A warra nt le ss arre stvi ol at es th e Fo urth Am en dm en t wh enth ere i s n o pr ob ab le cau se , W oo d v . Kesl er, 3 23 F.3d87 2, 8 78 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ), bu t anoff ic er m ay rel y on a vi ct im ’s cri m in al co m pl ai ntto supp ort p ro babl e cau se . Ran ki n v . Eva ns , 13 3 F .3d14 25 , 14 41 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ); s ee al so Sin ge r v. Fu lt on Cn ty. Sh eri ff, 6 3 F .3d11 0, 1 19 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (“ An arres ti ng off ic er advi se d o f a cri m e b y a pe rs on who cla im s t o b e th e v ic ti m , andwho ha s s ig ne d aco m pl ai ntor in fo rm at io n c ha rg in g s om eo ne with acri m e, ha s p ro babl e cau se to effe ctanarre st ab se ntcir cu m st an ces th atrai se do ub ts as t o t he vi ct im ’s ver aci ty.”). Mo reo ve r, anoff

ic er n eed s o nl y

arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se to be en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm

un it y . Sko p v . Cit y

of At la nt a, 48 5 F .3d11 30 , 11 37 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Argu ab le pro babl e cau se ex is ts when a reas on ab le off ic er i n the same ci rcu m st an ces an d wi th th e sa m e kno wled ge as t he de fen da ntco ul d h av e b el ie ve d th atpro babl e cau se ex is te d t o a rres t. Id . Here, Ch ris tm an ’s com

pl ai ntall eg edth atOffic er Ho lm es rel ie d o n a cri m in al co m

pl ai ntto supp ort p ro babl e cau se to arre stCh ris tm an . The co m pl ai nt di d n otall eg e an y

fact s s ug ge st in g t ha t Offi cer Ho lm es ’s rel ia nc e o n t he cri m in al co m pl ai ntwas u nr eas on ab le . Abs en t s uc h a ll eg at io ns , Chr is tm an ’s fal se arre st cl ai m fai ls as am at te r of

law. 6As fo r th e m al ic io us pro se cu ti on cla im ag ai ns t al l t hr ee Defe nd an ts , Ch ris tm an ’s com

pl ai ntall eg es th atth e st at e p ro se cu to r fi le d aNo In fo rm at io n be fo re an y

he ari ng or a rrai gn m en t. To s ta te a fed eral cla im of m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on , th e p la in ti ff m us t al le ge , in te r al ia , th e el em en ts of t he co m m on law to rt o f m al ic io us pro se cu ti on , on e o f whi ch is th e co m m en cem en t o f anori gi na l jud ic ia l p ro ceed in g a ga in stth e p la in ti ff. Kin gs landv. Ci ty of Mi am i, 3 82 F.3d 12 20 , 12 34 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Howev er, i n t he cas e o f warra nt le ss arre st , th e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in g d oe s n otco m m en ce u nt il arra ig nm en t o r in di ct m en t, an d a pl ai nt iff can no t m ak e o uta m al ic io us pro se cu ti on cla im m erel y for hi s arres t. Id . at12 35 . Becau se th e al le ga ti on s i n C hr is tm an ’s com pl ai ntest ab li sh th at Ch ris tm anwas a rres te d b utno t arrai gn ed , he d idno t s ta te a fed eral (orst at e)
m al ic io us pro se cu ti on cla im . 3 Fi na ll y , gi ve n t ha t Ch ris tm an ’s com pl ai ntdi d n otall eg e anun de rlyin g co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, i t n eces sa ril y fai le d t o a ll eg e a § 19 83 co ns pi racy. See NAACP v. Hu nt , 89 1 F .2d15 55 , 15 63 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th ata pl ai nt iff al le gi ng a § 1 98 3 c on sp ira cy m us t s ho w an “ act io nabl e wro ng ,” an d c on cl ud in g Although Christman’s c omplaint alleg ed that De fenda nt Office r Holmes conduc ted a 3 war rantless sea

rch of his home and seized tax files, Christ man’s appe llate brief did not offer

any leg al ar gument on this iss ue. Thus, Christman aba ndoned this claim. See Gr eenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alaba ster, 881 F .2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989) (statingthat issues merely identified but not argued on the merits are de emed wa ived). 7th at , bec au se th e p la in ti ff’s u nd erl y in g m al ic io us pro se cu ti on cla im fai le d, i ts co ns pi racy clai m

als o fa il ed ). Mo reo ve r, Ch ris tm an ’s com pl ai ntdi d n otall eg e th atOffic er Ho lm es reac he d an u nd ers ta nd in g wi thJo hn so n a ndBu ck le y to vi ol at e Ch ris tm an ’s rig ht s. In st ead , th e co m pl ai ntall eg edon ly tha t J oh ns on an d Bu ck le y fil eda fal se cri m in al co m pl ai ntan d u se d t he Fo rt P ie rce P ol ic e Dep artm en t t o h av e Ch ris tm anarre st ed . See Ba il ey v. Bd . of C nty . Comm ’rs of Alac hu a Cn ty., 95 6 F .2d11 12 , 11 22 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) (s ta ti ng th atto est ab li sh a § 1 98 3 c on sp ira cy

cla im be twee n s ta te an d p riv at e act or s, the pl ai nt iff m us t p ro ve th atth e d efen dant s “ reac he d a n u nd ers tand in g” to de pr iv e th e p la in ti ff o f hi s ri gh ts (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) ). Becaus e Ch ris tm an ’s con sp ira cy cla im was n ot supp orte d b y

an y fact s i n t he co m

pl ai nt , th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly dis m is se d i t. Fo r al l o f th es e rea so ns , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f Ch ris tm an ’s § 1 98 3 c om

pl ai nt . 4 AFFIRMED.

We rejec t the Def

endants’ a

rgument that Christman’s notice of a ppeal wa s untimely . 4 Christman’s timely

filed motion under F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 60 tolled the time for filing his notice of

appea l. See Fe d. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) (A)( vi). The district cour t denied the Rule 60 motion on J anuar

y 21, 2011. Be cause thirty day s therea fter w as a Sunday and the f ollowing day was Washington’s Birthda y , Christman’s notice of a ppeal wa s not due until Februa ry 22, 2011, the day

he filed it. See F ed. R. App. P. 26(a) (1)( C), (a) (6)( A). 8