FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT April 30, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 07- 13699 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o ck etN o . 0 7 -6 0 7 4 2 -C V -W JZ R A Y F I E L D J O S E P H T H I B E A U X , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , M ic h a e l B . M u k a s e y , U .S . I N S P E C T O R G E N E R A L , G le n A . F in e , O F F I C E O F P R O F E S S I O N A L R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y , M a r s h a ll H . J a rr e tt, C o u n s e l, D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l30, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

P E R C U R I A M: R ay fi el d T hi beaux, a non -pri soner procee di ng pro se, appeal s the di sm i ss al o f h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 c o m p la in t. T h ib e au x a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s h o u ld ha ve c om pe l l e d the de f

e nda nt s , w ho a r e f

e de r a l e m pl oy e e s a c t i ng w i thi n the s c ope o f th e iro f f ic ia l d u tie s , to in v e s tig a te a n d p r o s e c u te h is u n d e r ly in g c o m p la in ts . W e A F F I R M . I . B AC KG RO UN D R a y f i e l d T hi be aux f

i l e d apr o s e § 1983 a c t i on i n f orm apaupe r i s i n the S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f

F lo r id aa g a in s t A lb e rto R . G o n z a le s a s U .S . A tto rn e y G e n e r a l, G l e n A . F i ne a s U . S . I ns pe c t orG e ne r a l , a nd M a r s ha l l H . J a rr e tta s C ouns e l f orthe O ff i ce of P rofe ss i on al R es po nsi bi l i ty. T he com pl ai ntal l eged thatthe nam ed de f e nda nt s vi ol a t e d T hi be aux’ s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s . I n pa rt i c ul a r , the c om pl a i nt c i t e s 18 U . S . C . § 245 ( “ i n vi ol a t i on of F e de r a l l y P r ot e c t e d A c t i vi t i e s ” ) a nd 18 U . S . C . § 2 42 (“ D epri vat i on of R i gh t s” ) and desc ri bes how the defendant s r ef used t o i n v e s t i g a t e Th i b e au x ’ s a l l e g a t i o n s o f f r au d a n d mi s c o n d u c tr e g a r d i n g th e U . S. D is tr ic t C o u rt f

o rth e W e s te rn D is tr ic t o f L o u is ia n a , th e C le rk ’s O f f ic e f o rth e F if th C i rcu i tC o u rto f A p p eal s, an d tw o fed eral j u d g es. R 1 -1 at3 . S p eci fi cal l y, T hi be aux a l l e ge d tha taf e de r a l j udge ha d w r ongf ul l y di s m i s s e d hi s c om pl a i nt re gardi ng a f

al se arre stthatt oo k p l ac e i n T exas , and thatanother f eder al j ud ge had3

di sm i ss ed hi s s ub se qu entcom pl ai nt s “ w i tho utany other c ou rtproceedi ng . ” I d. at 2. T hi beaux app ea l ed these di sm i ss al s t o the F i fth C i rc ui tC ou rtof A pp ea l s, w hi ch “f ile d th e iro w n b a c k - o f

f ic e o p in io n s ,” a f

f irm in g th e lo w e rc o u rt’s d is m is s a ls . I d . T hi be aux f

urthe rc om pl a i ns tha the f i l e d as ubs e que ntc om pl a i nta nd pa i d the f i l i ng f e e , buttha tthe a s s i gne d j udge di s m i s s e d the c om pl a i nta nd r e f us e d t o r e turn the f i l i ng f e e t o T hi be aux. T hi be aux the n w r ot e al e tt e rt o U . S . A tt orne y K a the r i ne V in c e n t r e g a r d in g th e f

a c t th a t th e c o u rts h a d ta k e n h is m o n e y a n d r e f u s e d to a ddr e s s hi s c om pl a i nt s , buthe w a s t ol d tha t“ he rof f i c e w oul d do nothi ng abouta ny o f th e s u its f

ile d .” I d . a t 2 - 3 . T he F l or i dadi s tr i c tc ourtdi s m i s s e d w i thoutpr e j udi c e T hi be aux’ s § 1983 c om pl a i ntbe c aus e i tf

a i l e d t o s t a t e ac l a i m a nd w a s f r i vol ous , pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S. C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) . Th e c o u rta l s o d e n i e d Th i b e au x ’ s mo t i o n t o p r o c e e d i n f o rma paupe r i s . S pe c i f

i c a l l y , the c ourte xpl a i ne d tha t“ the r e i s no pr i va t e r i ghts e c ur e d by th e C o n s titu tio n a n d m a d e a c tio n ab le th r o u g h § 1 9 8 3 to h a v e ap e r s o n ’s c o m p la in ts c onc e rni ng the na t i on’ s A rt i c l e I I I C ourt s i nve s t i ga t e d a nd pr os e c ut e d by the exec ut i ve branch of the go vernm ent . ” R 1-4 at2. T he di stri ctcourtfurther o b s e rv e d th a t th e p o w e rto in v e s tig a te a n d p r o s e c u te ac o m p la in t is v e s te d s o le lyin the e xe c ut i ve br a nc h a nd tha tthe j udi c i a ry br a nc h c a nnotc om pe l s uc h a c t i on. I d. a t 2 - 3 .4

W i thi n t e n bus i ne s s da y s , T hi be aux f i l e d am ot i on f

orj udgm e nt , am ot i on f o rc r im e v ic tim s ’ a s s is ta n c e a n d ap p o in tm e n t o f a tto rn e y , am o tio n to a m e n d /c o rr e c t th e m o tio n f o rju d g m e n t, a n d a n o th e rm o tio n f o rju d g m e n t. I n h is am en d ed m o t i o n fo r j u d g m en t , T h i b eau x al l eg ed a co n fl i cto f i n t erestb ecau se P re si dentG eorge W . B ush h ad been go vernor of T exas w hen T hi beaux w as a lle g e d lyu n la w f

u llyin c a r c e r a te d th e r e . T h ib e au x a ls o f u rth e re x p la in e d h is a lle g a tio n s o f

“F r au d U p o n th e C o u rt,” a s f o llo w s : ( 1 ) th e U .S . D is tr ic t C o u rt in L af ay ett e, L ou i si ana, grant ed hi s m ot i on t o h ave the defendant s s erved b utthen di sm i ss ed hi s l aw sui tw i tho utcond uct i ng any other c ou rtproceedi ng s; (2) ano ther di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt e d pe rm i s s i on t o T hi be aux t o pr oc e e d i n f orm apaupe r i s but de ni e d hi s m ot i ons t o ha ve the de f e nda nt s s e rve d a nd di s m i s s e d hi s c om pl a i nt s ; ( 3) a di stri ctcourtent er ed an order l i m i t i ng T hi beaux’ s abi l i ty t o i ni t i at e f urther c ou rt p ro ceed i n g s b y req u i ri n g h i m fi rstt o p ay al l p astfees an d p ro v i d e a w ri tt en req u est t o fi l e s ui ti n thatcourtho use; and (4) as a r es ul tof thatorder, the appel l at e c ou rt and d i stri ctcourtre t ai ned T hi beaux’ s f i l i ng fe es for asubsequent l y f i l ed appeal a nd c om pl a i nt , e ve n though thos e c a s e s w e r e di s m i s s e d. R 1- 8 a t1. T hi be aux expl ai ned that , w hen the U . S . A tt orney r ef used t o d o anythi ng abou t“ thi s i l l egal c ourtm a tt e r , ” he f

i l e d c om pl a i nt s w i th the U . S . I ns pe c t orG e ne r a l a nd the O f f i c e of P rofe ss i on al R es po nsi bi l i ty; he di d n otre ce i ve a r es po nse f rom ei ther off

i ce . Id. at5

3 . I n s u p p o rt o f

h is a m e n d e d m o tio n f

o rju d g m e n t, T h ib e au x c ite d F e d e r a l R u le of C i vi l P roce du re 60 (b), expl ai ni ng thati tdo es “ no tl i m i tthe po w erof the court . . . to r e lie v e ap a rtyf

r o m aju d g m e n t o ro r d e r ” ; th e S e v e n th A m e n d m e n t, expl ai ni ng thati t“ pres erves apl ai nt i ff’ s r i gh tt o sue”; and B ul l och v . U ni t ed S t at es , 72 1 F . 2d 71 3 (10 th C i r. 19 83 ), as se rt i ng that“ [a ] [f ] eder al [c ] ou rtm ay i nv es t i gat e quest i on as t o w hether there w as fr aud i n p rocurement of j ud gm ent . ” Id . In h i s m o t i o n fo r cri m e v i ct i m s’ assi st an ce, T h i b eau x ex p l ai n ed th ath e w as a vi ct i m of a c ri m e bec ause the court s had t aken hi s m on eyun l aw ful l y and had

“ c ons pi r e d t o ke e p [ hi m ] outof c ourt . ” R 1- 6 a t1. H e ba s e d hi s m ot i on a nd e nt i t l e m e ntt o r e l i e f

on 18 U . S . C . §§ 3771( a ) ( 1) - ( 4) a nd 3006A ( a ) ( 1) ( I ) , a nd on 42 U . S . C . §§ 10606 a nd 10607. I n a n om ni bus or de r , the di s tr i c tc ourtde ni e d a l l of the s e m ot i ons a s m oot be c aus e T hi be aux ha d notpa i d af i l i ng f e e . T he di s tr i c tc ourta l s o not e d tha tthe

“ S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof

F l or i dai s notthe pr ope rve nue f orf i l i ng a c t i ons c onc e rni ng t ort s a l l egedl y c om m i tt ed i n T exas . ” R 1-9 at2. T he courtal so addres se d T hi beaux’ s m ot i on for c ri m e vi ct i m ’ s a ss i st ance , expl ai ni ng thatthe st atut es ci t ed b y T h ib e au x d o n o t s u p p o rt th e r e lie f s o u g h t a n d d o n o t p r o v id e c r im e v ic tim s w ith the r i ghtt o ac ourt - appoi nt e d a tt orne y . T hi be aux f i l e d at i m e l y not i c e of

appe a l ofThibeaux stated in his noti ce of appeal that he was a

ppealingboth orders of

the district 1 court. How ever , a leg al claim or a rgument not addre ssed in the brief s is deemed a

bandoned a

nd we will not addre ss its m erits. Acc ess Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). Thibea

ux ’s brief presents no argument as to why the cour t’s omnibus order dismiss ing his amended motion for judgment and other motions was improper. B eca use he ha s thereby failed to address the dismissal of his motions on appeal, he ha s waived that claim. See id. 6 th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e r s , a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt g r a n te d h is m o tio n to ap p e a l in fo rm a p au p eri s. O n app ea l , T hi beaux argues thatthe D epartm entof Just i ce has di sc ri m i nat ed a g a i n s th i m a n d “ [ c ] r e a t [ e d ] a[ c ] o n f l i c to f [ i ] n t e r e s t . ” Ap p e l l a n t ’ s B r . a t5 . He a ls o a s s e rts th a t th e D e p a rtm e n t o f J u s tic e d o e s n o t a llo w h im a“lo g ic a l w a y to a g g r i e v e mi s c o n d u c t . ” I d . Th i b e au x mo r e s p e c i f i c a l l y a s s e rt s th a tth e U . S. D e p a rtm e n t o f

J u s tic e in v e s tig a te s a lle g a tio n s o f “tr e a s o n b e in g c o n d u c te d w ith in th i s co u n try, ” an d th atth e d efen d an t s refu sed t o i n v est i g at e T h i b eau x ’ s co m p l ai n t s, w hi ch am ou nt s t o “ F raud U po n the C ou rt ” and “ O ne H un dred P er ce ntT re as on . ” I d . a t 6 . T h ib e au x a ls o a s s e rts th a t th e f e d e r a l d is tr ic t ju d g e s n a m e d a s d e f e n d a n ts ou gh tt o h ave di squal i fi ed them se l ves f rom hi s c as es as i nsuffi ci ent l y i m part i al p u rsu an tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 4 5 5 . H e i m p l i es th atth ei r fai l u re t o d o so m ak es th ese j udge s “ gui l ty of

m i s pr i s i on of

tr e a s on. ” I d. a t11.

1 I I . DI S CUS S I ON T he f e de r a l s t a tut e gove rni ng i n f orm apaupe r i s a c t i ons i s c odi f i e d a t28 U . S . C . § 1915. H ughe s v. L ott , 350 F . 3d 1157, 1159 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . U nde r287

U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) , ad is tr ic t c o u rt m u s t d is m is s a n in f o rm ap au p e r is a c tio n if th e c o u rt d e te rm in e s th a t th e a c tio n is “f r iv o lo u s o rm a lic io u s ; f a ils to s ta te ac la im on w hi c h r e l i e f

m a y be gr a nt e d; ors e e ks m one t a ry r e l i e f a ga i ns tade f

e nda ntw ho i s i m m une f

r om s uc h r e l i e f

. ” 28 U . S . C . § 1915( e ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) - ( i i i ) . W e r e vi e w de no vo a di stri ctcourt ’ s s ua spon t e di sm i ss al for f ai l ure t o st at e acl ai m un der § 1915( e ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) , vi e w i ng the a l l e ga t i ons i n the c om pl a i nta s true . H ughe s , 350 F .3 d a t 1 1 5 9 - 6 0 . W e r e v ie w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n ad is tr ic t c o u rt’s s u as p o n te di s m i s s a l f

orf r i vol i ty unde r§ 1915( e ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . I d. a t1160. “ A c l a i m i s f r i vol ous i f i ti s w i thoutm e r i te i the ri n l a w orf a c t . ” B i l a l v. D r i ve r , 251 F . 3d 1346, 1349 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . C i vi l ac t i on s a gai nstst at e off i ce rs for vi ol at i on s of f

eder al const i tut i on al r i ght s a r e gove rne d by 42 U . S . C . § 1983. T he a va i l abi l i tyof ac aus e of

a c t i on agai nstfe dera l offi ci al s f or vi ol at i on s of f

eder al const i tut i on al ri gh t s w as est ab l i sh ed i n B i v en s v . S i x U n k n o w n N am ed A g en t s o f F ed . B u reau o f N arco t i cs, 4 0 3 U .S . 3 8 8 , 3 9 5 - 9 7 , 9 1 S . C t. 1 9 9 9 , 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . B e c au s e o f th e s im ila r ityin the c aus e s of

a c t i on, w e ge ne r a l l y appl y § 1983 l a w t o B i ve ns a c t i ons . W i l s on v. B l a nke ns hi p, 163 F . 3d 1284, 1288 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . B i ve ns c l a i m s c a n be br ought a g a in s t f e d e r a l o f f ic e r s in th e irin d iv id u a l c ap a c itie s o n ly ; th e y d o n o t ap p lyto f e de r a l of f i c e r s a c t i ng i n the i rof

f i c i a l c apa c i t i e s . C orr . S e rvs . C orp. v. M a l e s ko,8

53 4 U . S . 61 , 70 -72, 12 2 S . C t . 51 5, 52 1-22 (200 1). T he F eder al T ortC l ai m s A ct (F T C A ) perm i t s c l ai m s f or ce rt ai n n egl i gentor w rong ful ac t i on s by f eder al e m p lo y e e s w ith in th e s c o p e o f th e iro f f ic ia l d u tie s . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) . H ow e ve r , c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s a r e notc ogni z abl e unde rthe F T C A . F D I C v. M ey er , 51 0 U . S . 47 1, 47 8, 11 4 S . C t . 99 6, 10 01 (199 4). T he de c i s i on t o i nve s t i ga t e a nd pr os e c ut e c r i m e s i s e ntrus t e d t o the e xe c ut i ve b r a n c h . U n ite dS ta te s v . S m ith , 2 3 1 F .3 d 8 0 0 , 8 0 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ; U .S . C o n s t., a rt . I I , § 3. T hus , the U . S . A tt orne y G e ne r a l ha s “ br oa d di s c r e t i on” t o e nf or c e the c ountry ’ s l a w s . W a y t e v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 470 U . S . 598, 607, 105 S . C t . 1524, 1530 (198 5). U nd er28 U . S . C . § 1 36 1, the di stri ctcourthas ori gi nal j uri sdi ct i on ov era m a nda m us a c t i on “ t o c om pe l a n of f i c e rore m pl oy e e of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s ora ny a g e n c y th e r e o f

to p e r f o rm ad u tyo w e d to th e p la in tif f .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 6 1 . H ow e ve r , aw r i tof

m a nda m us m a y notc ontr ol pr os e c ut or i a l di s c r e t i on. O t e r o v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 832 F . 2d 141, 141- 42 ( 11th C i r . 1987) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt ed). B ecau se T h i b eau x w as su i n g fed eral o ffi ci al s, as o p p o sed t o st at e o ffi ci al s, T hi be aux’ s c om pl a i nta s s e rt e d aB i ve ns a c t i on, nota§ 1983 a c t i on. S e e W i l s on, 1 6 3 F .3 d at 1 2 8 8 . H o w ev er , th e d istrict co u rt’s m isin terp re tati o n o f T h ib ea u x ’s c o m p la in t a s a§ 1 9 8 3 a c tio n is n o t p r o b le m a tic b e c au s e w e ap p ly§ 1 9 8 3 la w to9

B iv e n s a c tio n s . S e e id . T h ib e au x , in a lle g in g th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts h a v e f

a ile d to f u lf ill th e iro f

f ic ia l d u tie s to in v e s tig a te h is a lle g a tio n s , is s u in g th e m in th e ir offi ci al capaci t i es . B ec ause B i vens ac t i on s are on l y a l l ow ed agai nstfe dera l offi ce rs i n thei r i nd i vi du al capaci t i es , T hi beaux h as no cause of a ct i on un der B iv e n s . S e e M a le s k o , 5 3 4 U .S . a t 7 0 - 7 2 , 1 2 2 S . C t. a t 5 2 1 - 2 2 . A l th o u g h th e F T C A p erm i t s cert ai n cau ses o f act i o n t o b e b ro u g h tag ai n st f e d e r a l o f f i c e r s a c t i n g i n th e i ro f

f i c i a l c ap a c i t i e s , Th i b e au x ’ s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms ar e notcogn i zabl e und erthe F T C A . S ee M ey er , 51 0 U . S . at47 8, 11 4 S . C t . at 1 0 0 1 . M o r e o v e r , b e c au s e “p r o s e c u to r ia l d is c r e tio n c a n n o t b e c o n tr o lle d b y aw r it of m a nda m us , ” the c ourtdi d note rri n f i ndi ng tha ti tc oul d notc om pe l the de f e nda nt s t o i nve s t i ga t e a nd pr os e c ut e T hi be aux’ s c om pl a i nt . S e e O t e r o, 832 F .2 d a t 1 4 1 - 4 2 . F i na l l y , T hi be aux ha s r e f e rr e d t o 18 U . S . C . §§ 245 a nd 242 a s ba s e s f or r e l i e f . H ow e ve r , the s e s e c t i ons of T i t l e 18 pe rt a i n t o c r i m i na l l a w a nd do not p r o v id e ac iv il c au s e o f

a c tio n o ra n y c iv il r e m e d ie s . S e e H a n n av . H o m e I n s . C o ., 2 8 1 F . 2 d 2 9 8 , 3 0 3 (5 th C i r. 1 9 6 0 ). E v en w h en w e co n stru e T h i b eau x ’ s p ro se p le a d in g s lib e r a lly , s e e T a n n e n b au m v . U n ite d S ta te s , 1 4 8 F .3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 3 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 98 ) ( per c uri am ), he has c i t ed no other bas es for c l ai m s of c on st i tut i on al v io la tio n s b y th e d e f

e n d a n ts .10

F o r th es e r ea so n s, ev en ac ce p ti n g as tru e a ll alleg atio n s in T h ib ea u x ’s c o m p la in t, w e c o n c lu d e th a t h e h a s f a ile d to s ta te ac la im u p o n w h ic h r e lie f c o u ld b e g ra n ted . A cc o rd in g ly, th e d istrict co u rt d idn o t errin d ism issin g T h ib ea u x ’s c o mp l a i n tf

o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e ac l a i m.

I I I . CONCL US I ON T h ib e au x ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f h is § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n . A l tho ug h the di stri ctcourtm i si nt erpret ed the com pl ai ntas a § 19 83 ac t i on ra ther tha n a n a c t i on unde rB i ve ns , the c ourtdi d note rri n di s m i s s i ng the c om pl a i nt be c aus e T hi be aux f

a i l e d t o a s s e rtthe vi ol a t i on of a n e xi s t i ng f

e de r a l or c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h ta n dth e r e b y t o e s t ab l i s h ab a s i s f o rr e l i e f . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we A F F I R M.