FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T J UNE 3, 2 009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 16 51 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 02 27 1- CV-TWT -1 AVERY LAMAR MILLER,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us R.L. CONWAY, Sh eri ff, FERGUSON, Lieu te na ntDepu ty, E. MCKENZIE, Dep uty , J. LAND, Dep uty , H. BREITINGER, Dep uty , Defen da nt s- App el le es .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ju ne 3, 2 00 9) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, TJOFLAT an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ave ry Lam ar Mi ll er, a p retria l d et ai ne e, ap pe al s p ro se the di sm is sa l o f hi s
co m pl ai ntag ai ns t R.L. Co nwa y , FNU Ferg us on , E. McKen zi e, an d H. Bre it in ge r of th e Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t o f Gwin ne ttCo un ty. See 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 ; 2 8 U.S.C. § 1 91 5A( b) (1 ). The d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t M il le r’s co m pl ai ntfai le d t o s ta te a cl ai m . 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5A( b) . W e affi rm inpa rt, v acat e in part, andrem an d.

“ W e g en eral ly revi ew th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o a m en d aco m pl ai ntforan ab us e o f di sc ret io n, b utwe rev ie w qu es ti on s o f la w de n ov o.” W il li am s v . Bd. o f Reg en ts of Un iv . Sy s. o f Ga., 47 7 F .3d12 82 , 12 91 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (ci ta ti on s
om itte d) . W e rev ie w de n ov o adi sm is sa l u nd er Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m , acce ptth e al le ga ti on s i n the co m pl ai ntas t ru e, an d c on st ru e th em inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ff. Doe v. Mo or e, 41 0 F .3d13 37 , 13 42 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ).

2The di stric t co urt erredwhen itde ni edas f ut il e Mi ll er’s m ot io n t o a m en d hi s co m pl ai ntto in cl ud e ad di ti on al de fen da nt s. “ A party m ay am en d i ts pl ead in g
on ce as a m at te r of

co ur se be fo re b ei ng serve d wi th a res po ns iv e p le ad in g.” Fed
. R. Ci v. P. 1 5( a)(1 ). Becaus e n on e o f th e p ol ic e o ffi cers nam edinth e co m pl ai nt ha d fi le d ares po ns iv e p le ad in g wh enMi ll er s ou gh t t o a m en d h is co m pl ai nt , Mil le r ha d the rig htto am en d h is co m pl ai ntas am at te r of

co ur se . See Will ia m s, 4 77 F.3 d a t 1 29 2 & n.6 . W e v acat e th e o rd er tha t d en ie d M il le r’s m ot io n t o a m en d a nd
rem an d fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o a ll ow M il le r to fil e anam en de d c om pl ai nt . The di stric t co urt al so erre d wh enitdi sm is se d M il le r’s cl ai m ab ou t the “ no ta lk in g” rul e. “ Due pro ces s p ro hi bi ts a st at e fro m pu ni sh in g apre tri al de ta in ee at al l u nt il he is lawf

ul ly con vi ct edof acri m e.” Mc Mi ll anv. J oh ns on , 88 F.3d15 54 , 15 64 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). “ [A] sho win g o f in te ntto pu ni sh su ffi ces to sh ow
un co ns ti tu ti on al pre tri al pu ni sh m en t” an d “ m ay be in ferr edwhen a co nd it io n o f pr etria l d et en ti onis no t re as on ab ly relat edto a le gi ti m at e g ov ern m en ta l g oa l.” Id
. Bec au se Mi ll er al le ge d tha t the “ no tal ki ng ” ru le was arb itrary andcap ric io us , he st at eda cl ai m

th atth e ru le was i m

po se d t o p un is h h im
. The di stric t co urt d idno t err whe n i t d is m is se d t he rem ai nd er o f Mi ll er’s
co m pl ai nt . Mil le r as se rts th atBrei ti ng er m ad e “ ho rri fic th reat s” to an ot he r in m at e, bu t M il le r la ck s s tand in g t o p ur su e a cl ai m on be ha lf o f an ot he r pe rs on . See
3Gran it e St at e Out do orAdv er., In c. v. Ci ty of Cl earwa te r, Fla ., 35 1 F .3d11 12 ,

11 16 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Mi ll er ar gu es th atanoff ic er re ta li at edag ai ns t h im for
ex erci si ng hi s ri gh t t o fr ee s pe ech , bu t h e fai le d t o a ll eg e fac ts th atCo nwa y , Ferg us on , McKen zi e, an d B rei ti ng er p art ic ip at edinth e ret al ia ti on . See Do ug la s v . Yate s, 5 35 F.3d13 16 , 13 21 –2 2 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 8)
. W e AFFIRMth e d is m is sa l o f Mi ll er’s co m pl ai ntex cep t h is cla im

reg ard in g th e “ no tal ki ng ” ru le an d we REVERSE th e d is m is sa l o f th atcla im . W e VACATE th e o rd er tha t d en ie d M il le r’s m ot io n t o a m en d a nd REMAND for furth er p ro ceed in gs . AFFIRMED I N PART, REVERSED IN PART. VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

4