FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 30, 2006 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. 05- 14742 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 2 1 5 - CV - O C- 1 0 - G RJ R O N A L D N O R M A N D Y E , P la in tif f- A p p e lla n t, v ersu s W I L L R A D C L I F F , in d iv id u a lly , D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lle e , R . K E V I N S T E I N K E , i nd i vi du al l y a nd as an offi ce r for the F l or i daF i s h a nd W i l dl i fe C ons e r va t i on C o m m is s io n , e t a l., D e fe 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 forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 30, 2006)2

B efo re B IR C H , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P l ai nt i ff-app el l ant , R on al d N orm an D ye , appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s order g r a n tin g s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t o n h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 c la im in fa v o ro f d e fe n d a n tap p el l ee, W i l l R ad cl i ff, an d rem an d i n g al l h i s rem ai n i n g st at e l aw cl ai m s. B ecau se w e f i nd D y e ha s fa i l e d t o poi ntt o a ny e vi de nc e tha tR a dc l i f f a c t e d unde rc ol orof s t a t e l a w , w e A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D T hi s app ea l ar i se s outof a di sput e bet w ee n n ei gh bo ri ng prop er t y ow ners al on g the E m er al da M ar sh i n F l ori da. R adcl i ff began t o com pl ai n t o aut ho ri t i es at the F l or i daF i s h & W i l dl i fe C ons e r va t i on C om m i s s i on ( “ C om m i s s i on” ) a bout u n a u th o r iz e d h u n tin g o n h is la n d a f te rh e h a d te r m in a te d D y e ’s e m p lo y m e n t a s h is r a n c h m a n a g e rin N o v e m b e r2 0 0 0 . R 1 - 3 4 , S te in k e A f f id a v it ¶ 6 . H e r e p e a te d ly c om pl a i ne d a bouts uc h una uthor i z e d hunt i ng pa r t i c ul a r l y by D y e a nd hi s s on, K ei th D ye . Id. S om e of the com pl ai nt s w er e r egi st er ed by R adcl i ff ’ s new ra nch m a na ge r , L a rr y G e pha r dt . I d. , F i s he rA f f i da vi t¶ 6. A fter o n e s u ch co m p lain t, C o m m issio n o ff icer s w en t o u t t o R ad cliff’s prop er t y on 1 D ec em ber 200 1 t o i nv es t i gat e. A ft erhear i ng gu nsho t s, they s t op ped D y e a nd hi s s on w ho w e r e tr a ve l i ng thr ough apa s s a ge of w a t e rc a l l e d the3

“ N a rr ow s ” w i th t w o de a d de e ri n the i ra i rboa t . T he y de ni e d ha vi ng be e n on R ad cl i ff’ s p ro p ert y atan y t i m e. D ye’ s so n w as ci t ed fo r h u n t i n g w i th o u ta l i cen se bu tbo th D ye s w er e per m i tt ed t o l ea ve. T he offi ce rs w ar ned t hem , ho w ever , that they w ou l d b e i nv es t i gat i ng the i ss ue of tre spas si ng . K ei th D ye l at eradm i tt ed re spon si bi l i t y for ki l l i ng t w o o ther deerfoun d o n R adcl i ff ’ s property a nd w as c h a r g e d w ith e x c e e d in g th e le g a lly p r e s c r ib e d h u n tin g lim it. L at eri n the day, G ephardti nform ed the offi ce rs thatthe “ N arrow s” w as w i thi n the bo un dari es of R adcl i ff ’ s r anch and t hatR adcl i ff w ant ed t o p re ss char ges fo rtr e s p a s s in g . T h e C o m m is s io n p r o c e e d e d , in c o o p e r a tio n w ith th e L a k e C o u n ty G eographi c I nform ati on S ys t em D i vi si on and the D epar t m entof E nv i ronm ent al P rot ec t i on ’ s B urea u o f S urveyi ng and M appi ng and t he S t at e C adas tra l S urveyor, t o de t e r m i ne w he the rthe “ N a rr ow s ” a nd the l oc a t i on w he r e the de e rw e r e found w er e navi gabl e w at er s a nd w er e there fore consi dere d “ sovere i gn t y l ands, ” a de t e r m i na t i on tha tw oul d ne ga t e the pos s i bi l i t y of tr e s pa s s . A f

t e rr e c e i vi ng a r e por tf r om T e rr y W i l ki ns on, C hi e f of the B ur e a u of

S ur ve y i ng a nd M a ppi ng, w hi c h c onc l ude d tha tthe “ N a rr ow s ” di d notc ons t i tut e na vi ga bl e w a t e r s , the C om m i ss i on forw ar ded a copy of thatre po rtand i t s ow n reporton the 1 D ec em ber 2 0 0 1 ai r b o atst o p t o th e S t at e A tt o rn ey’ s o ffi ce. O n 4 M arch 2 0 0 2 , R o n al d D ye w as char ged w i th arm ed tre spas s. T he charge w as l at erdi sm i ss ed by the st at e tri al4

c o u r t, w h ic h c o n c lu d e d th a t D y e h a d ar ig h t to tr a v e l th r o u g h th e “N a rr o w s ” u p to the poi ntof

the hi gh w a t e rm a r k both be c a us e he w a s ar i pa r i a n pr ope r t y ow ne r s of l ands adj ac entt o the E m er al da M ar sh and b ec ause the D ye fa m i l y’ s host i l e, c ont i nuous , a nd a dve r s e us e of the “ N a rr ow s ” ha d e s t a bl i s he d apr e s c r i pt i ve e a s e m e n t. D y e a l l e ge s tha thi s pr os e c ut i on fora r m e d tr e s pa s s w a s m a l i c i ous a nd r e s u lte d f

r o m ac o n s p ir a c y a m o n g R a d c lif f a n d o f f ic e r s o f th e C o m m is s io n to de pr i ve hi m of

hi s f r e e dom a nd, e ve ntua l l y , hi s pr ope r t y . T he di s tr i c tc our tfound no evi dence i n the re cord of any s uch con spi ra cy and accordi ng l y gra nt ed sum m ar y j ud gm enton the grou nd s thatD ye had fai l ed t o est abl i sh thatR adcl i ff had act ed unde rc ol orof

s t a t e l a w , a s w oul d be r e qui r e d foras uc c e s s f ul c l a i m unde r42 U . S . C . § 1983. I I . DI S CUS S I ON

“ W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a r y j udgm e ntde novo, vi e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tfa vor a bl e t o the pa r t y oppos i ng the m ot i on. ” P e rr i no v. S . B el l T el . & T el . C o. , 20 9 F . 3d 13 09 , 13 14 -15 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ). S um m ar y j u d g m en tm u stb e g ran t ed “ i f th e p l ead i n g s, d ep o si t i o n s, an sw ers t o i n t erro g at o ri es, a nd a dm i s s i ons on f

i l e , t oge the rw i th the a f

f i da vi t s , i f

a ny , s how tha tthe r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue a s t o a ny m a t e r i a l fa c ta nd tha tthe m ovi ng pa r t y i s e nt i t l e d t o a5

j u d g me n ta s ama tt e ro f l a w . ” Ce l o t e x Co rp . v . Ca tr e tt , 4 7 7 U . S. 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 , 1 0 6 S. C t . 25 48 , 25 52 (198 6) (quo t i ng F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c )) .

“ T o est abl i sh a c l ai m un der 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3, a pl ai nt i ff m ustprov e ( 1) a vi ol ati on of a c on sti tut i on al ri gh t , and (2) thatthe al l eged vi ol ati on w as com m i tt ed by ape r s on a c t i ng unde rc ol orof s t a t e l a w . ” H ol m e s v. C r os by , 418 F . 3d 1256, 12 58 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ). “ [T ] he un der- col or-of- st at e- l aw el em entof § 19 83 excl ud es fr om i t s r ea ch m er el y pri vat e c on du ct , no m att erho w di sc ri m i nat ory orw r ongf

ul . ” F oc us on the F a m i l y v. P i ne l l a s S unc oa s tT r a ns i tA uth. , 344 F . 3d 12 63 , 12 77 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). H ow ever , “ [p] ri vat e par t i es w ho corr up t l y c on spi re ” w i th s t a t e of

f i c i a l s i n am a l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on a l s o a c tunde rc ol orof s t a t e l a w for p u rp o s e s o f

§ 1 9 8 3 . D e n n is v . S p a r k s , 4 4 9 U .S . 2 4 , 2 9 , 1 0 1 S . C t. 1 8 3 , 1 8 7 ( 1 9 8 0 ) . A “ pl ai nt i ff

att em pt i ng t o p rove such a conspi ra cy m ustshow thatthe parti es

‘ r e a c he d a n unde r s t a ndi ng’ t o de ny the pl a i nt i f f hi s orhe rr i ght s . ” N A A C P . v. H u n t, 8 9 1 F .2 d 1 5 5 5 , 1 5 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ( q u o tin g A d ic k e s v . S .H . K r e s s & C o ., 3 9 8 U .S . 1 4 4 , 1 5 2 , 9 0 S . C t. 1 5 9 8 , 1 6 0 5 ( 1 9 7 0 ) . A n a lle g a tio n th a t ap r iv a te defe nd antm i suse d a val i d st at e s t atut e does notst at e aca use of a cti on un der § 1983. S e e L uga rv. E dm onds on O i l C o. , 457 U . S . 922, 940- 41, 102 S . C t . 2744, 2 7 5 5 - 5 6 ( 1 9 8 2 ) . T h e r e fo r e , w e jo in o th e rc ir c u its in s a y in g th a t ap r iv a te p a r ty d o e s n o t a c t u n d e rc o lo ro f s ta te la w m e r e ly b y c a llin g u p o n o f f ic ia l s ta te a u th o r itySee Ginsbergv. Healey Car &Truck Leasing , Inc., 189 F .3d 268, 272 (2d Cir. 1999) 1 (summoning policeofficer and providing background information does not make summoner a joint participant in state ac tion); Daniel v. Ferguson, 839 F.2d 1124, 1130 (5th Cir. 1988) (elicitingaction by

state authority

is not action under c olor of state law); Lee v. T own of Estes Park, Colo., 820 F.2d 1112, 1115 (10th Cir. 1987) ( findingno state ac tion wheredefendant reported criminal activity , even if “insistent” about pre ssing charg es as longas authorities make determinations); Tarkowski v. Robert B artlett Realty Co., 644 F.2d 1204, 1208 (7th Cir. 1980) (“Aprivate person does not conspirewith a state off icial merely

by invoking an exercise of

the state off icial’s authority .”). 6 w hen h e does notal so j oi n i n the exerc i se there of. 1 O u r d e n o v o re v iew o f th e r ec o rd re v ea ls n o er ro r in th e d istrict co u rt’s f i ndi ng tha tthe r e i s no e vi de nc e tha tR a dc l i f f w a s i nvol ve d w i th the i nve s t i ga t i on r e ga r di ng the na vi ga bl e w a t e r s i s s ue a nd tha tthe r e i s no e vi de nc e of a ny a gr e e m e nt o r p l an b et w een R ad cl i ff an d th e C o m m i ssi o n o ffi cers t o arrestan d p ro secu t e D ye u n law fu ll y. D ye ’s b rief o n ap p ea l p o in ts to am p le ev id en ce o f R ad cliff’s a n i m o s i t y t o war d Dy e , h i s i n s i s t e n tc o m p l a i n t s t o th e C o m m i s s i o n , h i s o wn know l e dge a bouttr e s pa s s l a w , hi s e xpr e s s e d de s i r e t o ha ve D y e pr os e c ut e d for tr e s p a s s , a n d h is a lle g e d f in a n c ia l m o tiv e s fo rd o in g s o . D y e a ls o p o in ts to evi dence of hi s a ctual i nn ocence. A l tho ug h thi s m ay bearon D ye ’ s s t at e l aw c l a i m s , none of

i tde m ons tr a t e s the c ons pi r a c y ne c e s s a r y foras uc c e s s f ul § 1983 c la im . D y e a l s o m a ke s m uc h of hi s a s s e r t i on tha tL t . J e f f H a hrof the C om m i s s i on di d k no w the general rul e thatbo at er s w er e a l l ow ed t o g o as faras the hi gh w at er m a r k of na vi ga bl e w a t e r s . H e poi nt s t o no e vi de nc e , how e ve r , tha ta ny of the7

C om m i s s i on of

f i c e r s kne w w he the rthe “ N a rr ow s ” w e r e t e c hni c a l l y na vi ga bl e , a nd i f s o, w he r e the hi gh w a t e rm a r k l a y . I n fa c t , he a dm i tt e d i n hi s de pos i t i on tha the di d n otbel i eve a ny of the offi ce rs “ kn ew w here the ordi nary hi gh w at er m ark w as w h en th ey st o p p ed h i m o n D ecem b er 1 sto f 2 0 0 1 . ” R 3 -3 6 at4 1 . F u rth er, D ye hi m s e l f a dm i tt e d dur i ng hi s de pos i t i on tha the di d not“ fe e l tha t[ the C om m i s s i on O f f i c e r s ] w e r e c ons pi r i ng w i th R a dc l i f f , ” onl y tha tR a dc l i f

f w a s us i ng the C om m i ss i on t o l ever age hi m t o sel l hi s l and o r “ destroy [ hi m ] . ” I d. at78 -79. In hi s bri ef, D ye fa i l s t o p oi ntt o any spec i fi c e vi dence of a c on spi ra cy . H e r ef er s general l y t o the “ t ot al i t y of the ci rc um st ance s” and argues thatthe vi cti m i s oft en the l as tt o d i sc ov era c on spi ra cy . A pp el l ant ’ s B r. at27 . T hi s, tho ug h p erhaps true, i s note vi de nc e of

ac ons pi r a c y i n thi s c a s e a nd, thus , fa i l s t o r a i s e age nui ne i s s ue o f m a te r ia l fa c t. I I I . CONCL US I ON D y e a ppe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a r y j udgm e nti n fa vorof R a dc l i f f a s t o D y e ’ s § 1983 c l a i m . D y e ha s fa i l e d t o poi ntt o a ny e vi de nc e r a i s i ng ag e n u in e is s u e o f

m a te r ia l fa c t a s to w h e th e rR a d c lif f a c te d u n d e rc o lo ro f

s ta te l a w . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e A F F I R M.