FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T SEPT EMBER 24, 2 009 T HOMAS K . K AHN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 11 77 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock et No. 0 8- 01 81 9- CV-J HH-S

JERR Y JAMES B IAS,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us
CHANTE BIAS CROSB Y, MIKE HALE, DAVID BARBER, JOE ROBER TS,

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 ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 24 , 20 09 )

Befo re BLACK, BARKETT an d M ARCUS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.PER CURI AM:

Je rry Ja m es Bi as , an Alab am a s t a t e p r i s on er pr oc eed in g pr o se , ap pe al s th e
di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of hi s ci vi l rig ht s act io n fil ed pu rs ua nt to 42 U.S.C.
§ 19 83

. In hi s co m

pl ai nt , Bi as a l l eg ed th at Ch an te Bi as Cro sb y li be le d an d

sl an de r e d h i m w he n sh e fal se ly accu se d hi m of rap e an d se xu al as sa ul t, th at

Je ffer so n Co un ty Sh e r i f f M i k e Hale fal se ly im pr is on ed hi m , an d th at Dis tri ct

Att or ne y Dav id Barb er an d Dep ut y D i s t ric t Att or ne y Jo e Ro be rts m al ic io us ly, an d

wit ho ut pr ob ab le cau se , cau se d Bi as to be arre st ed fo r cri m es of whi c h h e l a te r

was acq ui tt ed

. Alt ho ug h Bi as fil ed a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gme n t , i t w a s de ni ed by th e di st ric t co ur t as pr em at ur e un de r 28 U.S.C. § 19 15 A. Th e d i s t r ic t co ur t

s u b s e q u e nt ly di sm is se d Bi as ’s co m pl ai nt fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m , pu rs ua nt to § 19 15 A(b ), fin di ng th at Bi as ’s cl ai m s were no t act io na bl e u n d e r § 19 83 be cau se
Bi as fai le d to al le ge fact s sh owi ng th a t Cro sb y was a st at e act or , or th at Hale , Barb er, an d R ob ert s wer e n ot en ti tl ed to im m un it y fro m hi s l aws ui t.

On ap pe al , Bi as arg ue s th at he was e n ti tl ed to su m m ary jud gm en t be cau se
he se t fo rth al le ga ti on s st at in g th at : (1 ) Cro sb y act ed un de r co l o r of st at e la w wh en
sh e co m m it te d li be l an d sl an de r th at le d to hi s ar r e s t ; (2 ) he was im pr is on ed ba se d

on pe rjure d t es ti m on y

kn owi ng ly use d b y st at e au th or it ie s to ob ta in hi s co nv ic ti on ;

2(3 ) th os e sa m e st at e act or s s up pr es se d e vi de nc e fav or ab le to hi s cl ai m s; an d (4 ) th e

de fen da nt s co ns pi red ag ai ns t h im . After c aref ul rev ie w, we affi rm

. W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to di sm is s a c o mp l a in t fo r
fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m

un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5A( b) (1 ), ta ki ng th e al le ga ti on s i n t he

co m pl ai nt as tru e. Bo xe r X v. Harri s, 43 7 F.3 d 11 07 , 11 10 (1 1t h C i r

. 2 0 06 ). 1

Sect io n 19 15 A of Tit le 28 of th e U.S. Co de , en act ed a s p a r t o f th e Pri so n
Lit ig at io n Ref

o r m A c t, pr ov id es th at “ [t]he co ur t sh al l rev ie w, be fo re do ck et in g, if

feas ib le or , in an y ev en t, as so on as pr act ic ab le aft er do ck et in g, a co m pl a i n t i n a
ci vi l act io n in whi ch a pr is on er se ek s red res s fro m a go ve r n men ta l en ti ty o r of fic er

or em pl oyee of a g o v e r n men t a l en ti ty.” 28 U.S.C. § 19 15 A(a). Upo n rev ie w, “ th e

co ur t sh al l id en ti fy co gn iz ab le c la im s or di sm is s th e co m pl ai nt , or an y po rti on of

th e co m pl ai n t , if th e co m

pl ai nt

. . . is fri vo lo us , m al ic io us , or fai ls to st at e a cl ai m

up on whi ch rel ie f m ay be gr an te d[ .] ” 2 8 U

. S.C. § 19 15 A(b ). “ A co m pl ai nt is

s u b je c t t o di sm is sa l fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m if th e al le ga ti on s, ta ke n as tru e,

Although B ias states in his brief that he is challeng ing the district court' s denial of his 1 motion for summary

judgme nt, his arg uments apply to the district court' s dismis sal of his ca se for failure to state a c laim upon which re lief ca n be g rante d. Acc ording ly , we c onstrue his arg uments as a c halleng e to the cour t's dismissal, and re view that dismissal. See Tanne nbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 ( 11th Cir. 1998) (stating that "[p]ro se pleading s are held to a less stringe nt standard than ple ading s draf ted by attorney s and will, theref ore, be liberally construed" ).

3sh ow th e pl ai nt iff is no t en ti tl ed t o r e l i e f

. ” Jo ne s v. Bo ck , 54 9 U.S. 19 9, 21 5, 12 7

S.Ct . 91 0, 9 20 , 16 6 L.Ed .2d 79 8 (2 00 7)

. Sect io n 19 83 pr ov id es a ci vi l cau se of act io n fo r “ a cl ai man t who can pr ov e
th at a pe rs on act in g un de r co lo r of st at e la w co m m it t e d a n act th at de pr iv ed th e
cl ai m an t of so m e rig ht , pr iv il eg e, o r i mm un it y pr ot ect ed by th e Co ns ti tu ti on or
la ws of th e Uni te d St at es .” Hale v. Tal l a p o o sa Co un ty, 50 F.3 d 15 79 , 15 82 (1 1t h

Ci r. 19 95 ) (ci ti ng 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3) . “ A per so n act s u nd er co lo r of st at e la w when

he act s wit h au th or it y po ss es s e d b y v i r t u e of hi s em pl oym en t wit h th e st at e.”

Grif fin v. Ci ty of Opa -Loc ka , 26 1 F .3d 12 95 , 13 03 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ).

No t a b l y , “ th e un de r-co lo r-o f-s ta te -la w el em en t of § 19 83 ex cl ud es fro m it s

reac h m erel y pr iv at e co nd uc t, no m a t t e r ho w di sc riminat or y or wro ng fu l.”

Am eri can Mfr s. Mu t. In s. Co

. v. Su l l i v a n, 52 6 U.S. 40 , 50 , 11 9 S.Ct

. 97 7, 98 5,

14 3 L.Ed.2 d 13 0 (1 99 9) (q uo ta ti on s om it te d)

. A pr iv at e pa rty w il l be vi ewed as a

st at e act or fo r § 19 83 pu rp os es on l y i n rare ci rcu m st an ces , su ch as whe n th e st at e
ha s pl ay ed an affi rm at iv e ro le by en co ur ag in g, co ns pi rin g, or act in g in co nc ert
wit h th e pr iv at e act or in th e pa rti cu la r co nd uc t un de rlyin g t h e cl ai m an t’s ci vi l

r i g h t s g r i e va nc e. Raybur n ex rel

. Raybur n v. Hog ue , 24 1 F.3 d 13 41 , 13 47 (1 1t h

Ci r. 20 01 ); Ben di bu rg v. Dem ps ey , 90 9 F.2 d 46 3, 46 8 (1 1 th Ci r. 19 90 ). A pl a in ti ff at te m

pt in g to pr ov e su ch a co ns pi racy be twee n pr iv at e an d st at e act or s

4m

us t sh ow th at th e pa rti es reac he d a n u nd ers ta nd in g to de ny t he pl ai nt iff hi s or he r rig h t s

. Ro we v. Ci ty of Fo rt Lau de rd al e, 27 9 F.3 d 12 71 , 12 83 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 );

Ben di bu rg , 90 9 F .2d at 4 68

. Alt ho ug h “ [o ]n it s face , § 19 83 ad m it s no immu n i t i e s,” th e Su pr em e Co ur t

ha s “ co ns is te nt ly reco gn iz ed th at su bs ta nt iv e do ct rin es o f pr iv il eg e an d im m un it y

m ay li m it th e rel ie f av ai la bl e in § 19 83 l i t i g at io n.” Tower v. Glo ve r, 46 7 U.S.

9 1 4 , 92 0, 10 4 S.Ct

. 28 20 , 28 24 , 81 L.Ed.2 d 75 8 (1 98 4)

. As a res ul t , b o t h

qu al ifi ed an d ab so lu te im m un it y d e f e n s es are av ai la bl e. Id

. Pro se cu to rs are
ab so lu te ly im m

un e fro m li a bi li ty fo r da m ag es fo r act iv it ie s th at are in ti m at el y

as so ci at ed wit h t h e ju d i c i al ph as e of th e cri m in al pr oc es s. Im bl er v. Pach tm an , 42 4 U.S. 4 09 , 43 0- 31 , 9 6 S.Ct . 9 84 , 9 95 -9 6, 47 L.Ed.2d 12 8 (1 97 6) (ho ld in g t ha t a

st at e pr os ecu ti ng of

fic er ha d ab so l u t e im m

un it y un de r § 19 83 whe n in it ia ti ng a

pr os ecu ti on an d whe n pr es en ti ng a st at e’s cas e); Ro we, 27 9 F.3 d at 12 79 (h ol di ng
th at im m un it y ex te nd s to al l act io ns t h e p r os ecu to r ta ke s whi le pe rfo rm in g hi s
fu nc ti on as a n a dv oc at e fo r th e g ov ern m en t).

Thi s im m un it y in cl ud es , fo r ex am

pl e, whe n pr os ecu to rs : (1 ) ap pe ar in co ur t

an d pr es en t ev i d e n c e i n su pp or t of a m ot io n fo r a se arch warra nt , Bu rn s v. Ree d,

50 0 U.S. 47 8, 49 2, 11 1 S.Ct

. 19 34 , 19 42 , 11 4 L. Ed

. 2 d 5 47 (1 99 1) ; (2 ) in th e

co ur se of th ei r ro le as ad vo cat es fo r th e st at e, pr ep are fo r th e i n i t i a ti on of jud ic ia l

5pr oc eed in gs or fo r tri al , Bu ck le y v. Fi tz si m m on s, 50 9 U.S. 25 9 , 2 7 3 , 11 3 S.Ct

. 26 06 , 26 15 , 12 5 L.Ed.2 d 20 9 (1 99 3) ; Im bl er, 4 2 4 U

. S

. a t 4 31 , 96 S.Ct

. at 99 5; (3 )

pr ep are an d fil e ch arg in g do cu m en ts , Kali n a v. Fl et ch er, 52 2 U.S. 11 8, 12 9, 11 8

S.Ct

. 50 2, 50 9, 13 9 L.Ed.2 d 47 1 (1 99 7) ; an d (4 ) us e f a l s e t e s t im on y an d su pp res s

ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce at tri al , Fu ll m an v. Grad di ck , 73 9 F

. 2 d 5 5 3 , 5 59 (1 1t h Ci r.
19 84 ). Pro se cu to rs , ho wev er , are no t en ti tl ed to ab so lu te im m un it y whe n th os e

as pe ct s of th ei r res po ns ib il it ie s cas t th em in th e ro le of an ad m in i s t r a t o r or
i nv es ti ga ti ve of

fic er, rat he r th an th at of an ad vo cat e. Kali na , 52 2 U.S. at 12 6, 1 1 8

S.Ct

. at 50 7- 08

. Fo r ex am pl e, pr os ec u t o r s do no t ha ve ab so lu te im m un it y whe n

m a k i n g s ta te m en ts to th e pr es s. Bu ck le y , 50 9 U.S. at 27 6- 78 , 11 3 S.Ct

. at

26 17 -1 8.

Si m il arl y , la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers are en ti tl ed to ab so lu te qu as i-ju di ci al

im m un it y whe n th ey are act in g in fu rth e r a n ce of th ei r of fic ia l du ti es an d in

rel ia nc e on va li d writ te n or ve rb al jud ic ia l or de rs

. Ro la nd v. Ph il li ps , 1 9 F .3d 55 2,

55 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 94 ) (n ot in g th at la w en fo rcem en t of fi c i a l s are pr ot ect ed by

ab so lu te qu as i-ju di ci al im m un it y when fol lo win g v al id jud ic ia l o rd ers ). Gene ral ly,

of fic ia ls pe rfo rm in g di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on s “ are s h i e ld ed fro m li ab il it y fo r ci vi l

da m ag es in so far as th ei r co nd uc t do es no t vi ol at e cl earl y es ta bl i s h e d s t at ut or y or

6co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s of whi ch a reas on ab le pe r s o n w o u l d ha ve kn own .” Swin t v.

Ci ty of W ad le y , Ala., 5 1 F .3d 98 8, 9 94 -9 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5) (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

. W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in di sm is si ng Bi as ’s

co m pl ai n t f o r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m

. The co m pl ai nt al le ge s th at : (1 ) Cro sb y act ed

un de r th e co lo r of st at e la w whe n sh e accu se d Bi as o f rap e an d se xu al ab us e,
whi ch cau se d th e p o l i c e t o arre st an d im pr is on Bi as ; (2 ) Hale arre st ed an d

im pr is on m en t Bi as wit ho ut pr ob a b l e cau se , pu rs ua nt to a warra nt ; (3 ) Barb er an d

Ro be rts m al ic io us ly cau se d Bi as to be arre st ed , fab ric at ed e v i de nc e, an d

su pp res se d m at eri al ev id en c e ; an d (4 ) Hale an d Cro sb y co ns pi red wit h Barb er an d

Ro be rts in th e ab ov e act io ns

. The se al le ga ti on s, ev en ta ke n as tru e, can no t

pr ov id e a b as is for rel ie f un de r § 1 98 3.

Fi rs t, th e c o mp l a i n t fai ls to al le ge an y fact s sh owi ng th at Cro sb y , a pr iv at e
in di vi d u a l , was a st at e act or or act ed in co nc ert wit h st at e act or s un de r co lo r of

la w. Raybur n , 24 1 F.3 d at 13 48 ; Grif fin , 26 1 F.3 d at 13 03

. As to th e cl ai m th at

Cro sb y co ns pi red wit h t h e o th er de fen da nt s, Bi as fai le d to al le ge an y fact s th at th e

pa rti es reac he d an un de rs ta nd in g to vi ol at e h i s r i g ht s, si m pl y st at in g th at th e fact

t h a t h e w a s acq ui tt ed of th e cri m e sh owe d th at at le as t so m e of th e de fen da nt s

co ns pi red ag ai ns t h im . Rowe, 2 79 F.3d at 1 28 3- 84 ; Be nd ib ur g, 9 09 F.2d at 4 68

.

7The co m pl ai nt al so fai ls to al le ge a n y f a c ts in di cat in g th at Harri s, Barb er

an d Ro be rts are no t en ti tl ed to im m un it y fo r th e act io ns th ey to ok in th e i r o f f ic ia l

cap aci ti es

. As to B a r

b er an d Ro be rts , th e di st ric t at to rn ey s in vo lv ed in Bi as 's

cri m in al cas e, th ey are ab so lu te ly im m un e fro m li ab il it y f

o r d a m ag es fo r act iv it ie s
i n t i m at el y as so ci at ed wit h th e jud ic ia l ph as e of th e cri m in al pr oc es s. Im bl er, 42 4

U.S. at 43 0- 31 , 96 S.Ct

. at 99 5- 96

. Bi as cl ai m s th at th ey m al ic io us ly cau se d hi m

to be arre st ed , fab ric at ed ev id en ce th at le d to hi s im pr is on m en t, su pp res se d

m at eri al ev id en ce, an d co ns pi red wit h H a l e , bu t al le ge s no th in g sh owi ng th at
ei th er at to rn ey a c t e d o u t s i de of hi s ro le as an ad vo cat e. Kali na , 52 2 U.S. at 12 6,

11 8 S.Ct

. at 50 7- 08

. As to th e co ns pi racy al le ga ti on , th e co m p l a i nt al le ge s no
fact s su pp or ti ng th is cl ai m

. Bi as al so cl ai m ed in hi s o b je c t i o n s to th e m ag is tra te 's

rep or t th at Barb er an d Ro be rts m ad e st at em en ts to th e pr es s , b u t ha s al le ge d no
fact s i n s up po rt o f th at cla im . Buc kl ey , 50 9 U.S. at 27 6- 78 , 11 3 S .Ct. at 26 17 -1 8.

Fi na ll y , be cau se Bi as ack no wled ge s th at Hale act ed pu r s u a n t t o a warra nt ,
H a l e h a s q ua si -jud ic ia l im m un it y fro m su it ba se d on Bi as 's arre st , a s he was act in g
in fu rth eran ce of hi s of fic ia l du ti es an d in rel ia nc e on a va li d jud ic ia l o r de r.
Ro la nd , 19 F.3d at 5 57 . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm

. AFFIRMED.

8