FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUG 28, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 07- 1552 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 04-00150 -CV -BA E- 6 ISAIAH J ORDAN, DOROTHY JORDAN, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us T O MM Y MO SL E Y , ind ivi dua lly a nd i n hi s of fi ci al c ap ac ity

a s an of fi ce r of the S cr ev en Co unty S he ri ff ’ s D ep ar tm en t, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Ge orgia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- (A ug us t 28, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T a nd B L A CK , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant I sa iah Jo rd anappe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of
sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of D ef en da nts T om

m y Mo sle y , c hie f j ai le r at

theMosley ’s wife is J ordan’ s niece . The Jordans wer e visiting t h ei r niec e whe n the incident 1 happene d. 2 Sc re ve n C ounty

S he ri ff ’ s D ep ar tm en t, a nd M ike K ile , S cr ev enCo unty S he ri ff , on hi s 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 cla im s. No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af fir m . T his c as e w as be fo re us i n apr ev iou s in te rl oc uto ry appe al by

Mo sle y on the de nia l of qua lif ie d im m uni ty . T he f

ac ts a bout the und er ly ing dis put e ar e re ci te d in
ou r pr io r op in io n. Se e Jo rd an v. Mo sl ey , 48 7 F .3d 13 50 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). To
summ arize briefly , Jordan w as arr ested after dam aging a backhoe that Mos ley had
re nte d to dig apon d onMo sle y ’ s pr ope rty . Jor da n r ef use d to pay

f or the da m ag e 1 t o t h e b ac kh o e, an dMo s l ey u rg ed an o t h erd ep u t y at t h e S cr ev en Co u n t y Sh er i ff ’s D ep ar tm en t t o take out

aw ar rant f or Jor da n’ s arr es t. T he w ar rant a lle ge d a vio la tio n of

O
. C. G
. A
. § 16 -7 -2 3( a) (1 ): c ri m ina l dam ag e to p ro pe rty in the se co nd degree. Jordan was arrested on the w arrant in Richm ond Cou nty and later tr an sf er re d to the S cr ev enCo unty Ja il. Jor da n’ s w if

e post ed ba il fo r him , the
am ount of w hic h in cl ude d r es tit

uti on f or the da m ag e ca

use d to the ba ckhoe a nd ot he r fee s. Th e ch arg es were d ro pp ed , and Jo rd an was re le as ed
. Jor dan f ile d ase ct ion198 3 c om

pla int , r ai sin g th e fo llo w ing c la im s: (1 ) he
w as unr ea sona

bly se iz ed w ith out pr oba ble c au se in vio la tio n of

the F ourth Am endm ent; (2) D efendants extorted bail m oney from him and his wife,Jord an a lso c la ime d th at D e fe nd ants we re de lib e rate ly ind if fe re nt t o h is s e ri ou s me dic a l ne e ds ; 2 b u tb e c a u s e h e d o e s n o t ar g u e th i s c l a i m o na p p e a l , i ti s a

b an d o n e d
. S e e D e n n e y v . C i ty o f A l b an y, 247 F.3d 1172, 1182 (11th Cir. 2001) (ex plaining that issues not briefe d on appea l are abandone d). 3 unl aw fu lly

de pr ivi ng the m

of pr ope rty in vio latio n of

the F if th and F ourte en th Am endm ents; (3) De fendants caused him and his wife to be deprived of fam ilial
re la tio nshi ps w ith out

due pr oc es s invio la tio n of the F if th and F ourte en th Am endm ents; (4) De fendants arre sted him in retaliation for Jordan’ s protected spe ec h and d en ie d hi m

aj ur y tr ia l i n vi ola tio n of

the F ir st, S ixth, a nd S ev en th A m en dm en ts; ( 5) he w as f al se ly a rr es te d and m al ic iou sly pr ose cu te d invio la tio n of state law ; and (6) D efendants m aliciouslyused the crim inal process to extort
m oney from him by im prisoni ng him
. In re spon se to Def endants’ sum

m ary 2 j udgm en t m oti on, Jor dan e xpl ai ne d th at his c onst itu tio na l c la im

about e xto rt ionof ba il subs um ed

his c la im f or F ir st, S ixth, a nd S ev en th A m en dm en t vi ola tio ns and
m or e pr ope rl y

w as la be le d ac onst itu tio na l a

buse of pr oc es s c la im , br ough t pur suant t o th e D ue P ro ce ss C lause of the F ourte en th A m en dm en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at Jor da n r ai se d af

ac t i ssu e on h is F ourth Am endm ent claim

about Mosl ey

and that Mosley

wa s unentit led to qualified im m uni ty . Mo sle y

appe al ed a nd w e re ve rs ed , c onc lud ing that pr oba ble c au se existed for Jordan’ s arre st: no Fou rth Am endm ent violatio n occurred, and Mosley
wa s entitled to q ualified im m unity
. Jordan, 487 F.3d at 1355-57. The districtDef

endants did not move for

summary judgme nt on Jordan’s state law cla ims, and the district 3 court de clined to exercise supple mental jurisdiction over these claims. Thro ugho ut t

his lit ig atio n, it h a s b e e n d if fi c ult to d isc e rn

Jord an’ s p re c ise c la ims . We a g re e wi th 4 the dis tr ic t c ourt

that J or da

n emp loye d a “sc atte r- sh ot” a pp ro a c h to this ca se , ra isi ng many c la ims but o f f e r in g “ s c an t” s u

p p o rt f o r th e m; w e c o mm e n d th e d is tr ic t c o urt f o r s o rti n g thr o u g h all the claims. See Mo rr o v. City of B irmingha

m, 117 F.3d 508, 515 (11th Cir. 1997) ( explaining that “ [t]he us e of

sh otgun ple a din g s in

civ il case s is a

ub iqu ito us pr ob le m,” and “ it i s p art ic ula

rl y important for dist rict courts to undertake the difficult, but essential, task of attemptingto narrow and define the issues befor e trial” ) (inter nal quotation omitted).

4 court granted summ ary

j udgm ent to Def

endants on Jordan’ s rem aining claim s. I n pe rt ine nt p ar

t, the dis tr ic t c ourt r ef

use d to r ec ogni ze ac onst itu tio na l a buse of pr oc es s c la im

und er se ct ion198 3, de te rm ini ng tha t Jo rd an ’ s c la im s st em m ed f ro m hi s ar res t an d, t hu s, m or e p ro pe rly were an al y zedun de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at Jor da n’ s m al ic iou s us e of c ri m ina l pr oc es s c la im
m irrored his constitu tional abus e of process cla im and also was not recognized
un de r st at e la w. 3 Jor dan c hie fl y

c ont en ds o n a

ppe al that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in fa ili ng t o reco gn iz e h is Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t ab us e o f pr oc es s cl ai m . W e rev ie w a 4 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t de nov o; and w e vie wthe e vid en ce a nd al l r ea sona

ble f ac tua l i nf er en ce s inthe li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the non m ovi ng pa rty. Mani cci a v . Bro wn, 1 71 F.3d 13 64 , 13 67 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). The f irst task in a section 19 83 sui t is “ to isol ate the prec ise constitu tional vio la tio n w ithw hic h [ de fe ndant] is ch ar ge d. ” Bake r v. Mc Co llan, 99 S
. Ct
. 268 9,5

2692 ( 1979 ). I f anA m en dm en t pr ovi de s an e xpl ic it te xtu al sourc e of constitu tional protection against the sort of condu ct com plained of, that Am endm ent -- not the m ore genera lized notio n of subst antive due process und er the F ourte en th A m en dm en t - - is the gui de f or a na ly zi ng the c la im
. S ee G raha m v. Connor, 109 S.Ct. 1865 , 1870-71 (1989 ) (in the context of an excessive forc e c l a i m)
. F o r

e x a mp l e , i n A l b r i g h tv . O l i v e r , 1 1 4 S
. C t . 8 0 7 ( 1 9 9 4 ) , t h e S up r e me Co urt r ef use d to r ec ogni ze asub stanti ve due pr oc es s r igh t un de r the F ourte en th A m en dm en t t o be f

re e fr om c ri m ina l pr ose cu tio n e xc ep t up on p ro bable c au se ; the Co urt de te rm ine d th at

suc h ac la im

m ust be a na ly ze d un de r the F ourth Am en dm en t. Id . at 8 13
. W e dis ce rnno e rr or

in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ef usa l t o r ec ogni ze Jor da n’ s il ldefined constitu tional abus e of process cla im
. In his com plaint, Jordan prem ised his c la im s onhis a lle ge d un law fu l arr es t: a ll of his a lle ga tio ns f

low ed f ro m thi s ar re st. U nde r the log ic of

G raha m a nd A lbr igh t, the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly de te rm ine d th at

Jor dan’ s c la im s sh oul d be a na ly ze d un de r the F ourth A m en dm en t, not the D ue P ro ce ss C lause of the F ourte en th A m en dm en t. S ee id. ( ex pla ini ng tha t “ the F ram er s c onsi de re d th e m atte r of pr etri al de pr iva tio ns o f lib er ty a nd dr aft edth e Fo urth Am en dm en t t o a dd res s i t” ).Jord an a lso c ite s th e F if th A me ndme nt; but a s the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re c tly de te rm ine d, the F if

th 5 Amendment applies only to Fede ral, not state, acts. See Knoetze v. U.S. Dep’ t of State, 634 F.2d 207, 211 (5th Cir. 1981) (F ifth Amendment protec tion ex tends to all persons within the United States, but attaches only when the fede ral g overnme nt se eks to de ny a liberty or prope rty

interest). 6 Whil e w e ha ve r ec ogni ze d th at m al ic iou s pr ose cu tio n c anr ise to a co nst itu tio na l t ort c ogni za ble und er se ct ion198 3, w e al so h av e re co gni ze d th at , in the li ght of A lbr igh t, it

is anind ep en de nt c au se of a ct ionthat po te nti al ly

is
co gni za ble und er the F ourth A m en dm en t. S ee Uboh v. Re no, 141 F . 3d 1 000, 1002 -0 3 n. 4 ( 11th C ir
. 199 8) ( if m al ic iou s pr ose cu tio n or abuse of pr oc es s is
co m m itt ed by state a ct or s and r es ult s inthe a rr es t or oth er se iz ur e of

de fe ndant, the de fe ndant’ s on ly

r em edy is unde r the F ourth A m en dm en t) ( ci tin g S m ar t v. Bd
. of T rustees, 34 F. 3d 43 2 (7th Cir. 1994)). So, even if abuse of process could be a
co gni za ble tor t un de r se ct ion198 3, pr ope r an al y sis w oul d be und er the F ourth A m en dm en t. A s w e pr ev iou sly de te rm ine d, no F ourth A m en dm en t vi ola tio n oc curr ed he re be ca

use pr oba ble c au se e xis te d f

or Jor da n’ s arr es t. Jor dan f au lts the dis tr ic t c ourt f

or a na ly zi ng h is F ir st, S ixth, a nd S ev en th A m en dm en t c la im s se parate ly ins te ad of a s part of his larg er

abuse of pr oc es s cl ai m . B ut i f a m or e spe ci fi c co nst itu tio na l pr ovi sio n a ppl ie s, the n Jo rd anc an not 5
re sort t o su

bst an tiv e due pr oc es s. S ee G raha m , 109 S
. Ct
. a t 18 70- 71. H er e, he al le ge d vi ola tio ns o f spe ci fi c A m en dm en ts.J ordan’ s orig inal claim for malicious abuse of the criminal proce ss c ontai n ed n o s t atutory 6 citati o n in his complaint; nor did he expl ain the basis of this claim in his response to summary judgme nt. J ordan a

rgues for the first time in his reply brief that this claim is for a violation of O.C.G.A. § 17-6- 1, about bailable of fense s. We w ill not consider this c laim. See United States v. Whit esell, 314 F .3d 1251, 1256 (11th Cir. 2002). We ha ve revie wed J ordan’ s rema ining appellate arguments and conc lude that no re versible e rror 7 has bee n shown. 7 Jor dan a lso a rg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in co nc lud ing that G eo rg ia does not rec ogni ze a tort for abuse of process. But that the district court noted G eo rg iadoe s no t r ec ogni ze a n a buse of pr oc es s c au se of

a ct ionw as not de te rm ina tiv e of

the c onst itu tio na l i ssu e. A nd w he the r G eo rg iar ec ogni ze s su cha claim under state lawis unim

portant because, once the f ederal c laim s wer e litigated ou t of Jordan’ s case, the district court declined to exercise supplem ental j ur isd ic tio n ov er

Jor dan’ s r em ai nin g st at e lawc la im s. Jor da n do es not c ha lle nge thi s de ci sio n; n or

do w e dis ce rne rr or

in it. S ee Rane y

v. A lls ta te I ns. Co
. , 370 F. 3d 1 086, 108 8- 89 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4) ( the de ci sio n w he the r to e xe rc ise supp le m en ta l j ur isd ic tio n is w ith in the dis cr et ionof the dis tr ic t c ourt and w e ha ve

“ en co ur ag ed

dis tr ic t c ourts t o di sm iss a ny r em ai nin g st at e cl ai m s w he n . . . the federa l claim s have been dism issed prior to trial”). 6 AFFIR MED. 7