F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT July 12, 20 06 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1175 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-02294 -CV -T W T- 1 EDWARD MIC HAEL L IBM AN, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us CIT Y O F A VO ND AL E E ST AT ES , a G eo rg iam

uni ci pa l c or

por at ion , CHIEF J EFF TARPLEY, et al ., D ef en da nts -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (J ul y 12 , 200 6) Be fo re MA RC U S, W IL SO N a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

E dw ar d M ic ha el L ibm an( “ L ibm an ”) a ppe al s th e dis trict c ourt’ s gr an t of
summ ary j udgm ent to the defendants, the City of A vond ale E states (the “ City ”), Chief Je ff T ar ple y ( “ T arpl ey ’), an d S er ge an t R
. T w ee d ( “ T w ee d” ), on a ll of his c la im s. L ibm an ’ s c la im s st em

f ro m his a rr es t f

or r ec ei pt o f sto len pr operty . L ibm anis the
m anager of P aw n Am erica , a pawn shop that received on pawn a j ackham m er stolen f r o m St a n P i k e ( “Pi k e ” ) , t h e o w n e r o f al o c a l c o n s t r

u c t i o n c o mp a n y. Pi ke r ep orte d th e the ft to T w ee d, w ho pr oc ee de d to ch ec k th e loc al paw n sh ops to s ee w he the r the y

ha d re ce ive d any j ac kham m er s onpaw n. O n tw o se pa rate vis its to P a w n A mer ic a, Tweedwas t ol d b y em pl oyees o f Pawn Am eri ca t ha t Pa wn A m er ic a ha d r ec ei ve d no j ac kham m er s on pa w n. T w ee d e ve ntu al ly le ar ne d th at the j ac kham m er ha d in de ed

be enr ec ei ve d onpaw n at P awn A m er ic a. A ft er

he ar ing of this, Pike w ent to r etrieve it. Libm an required Pike to pay $125 .00 to Paw n Am erica before r eturning hi s ja ckham m er. Tw eed wa s subs equently invo lved in two heated
ve rb al e xc ha nge s w ithL ibm anr eg ar din g whe the r L ibm an ha d to pr ovi de T w ee d w ith the paw n ti ck et , so tha t T w ee d c oul d c los e the inv es tig at ion
. These e xchanges, coupled with the ly in g of the Pawn Am erica em ploy ees wh om Libm an supervised, caused T we ed to susp ect that L ibm an m ay have been
co ve ri ng u

p hi s kn ow ing r ec ei pt o f sto le n go ods. B as ed on th is susp ic ion , T w ee d,
w iththe pe rm is si on of h is s upe rv iso r, T ar ple y , sou ght

aw ar ra nt f ro m am ag istrate3

j udge f or the arr es t of

L ibm an f

or r ec ei pt o f sto le n pr ope rty . O n th e af fi da vit
accom pany ing th e w arrant for L ibm an’ s arre st, a h andwritten notation app ears that states, “ officer

had talked to [Libm an and] he denied having the item in on p aw n.” (R
. 2- 46, E x. 2. ) T he pa rt ie s ag re e tha t T w ee d ne ve r spok e to L ibm anunt il af te r the it em was re tu rn edto Pik e. L ibm anw as a rr este d f

or r ec ei pt o f sto le n pr ope rty . A ft er his a rr es t, the prosecution offer ed to drop the charges against Libm an if L ibm an would exec u te a relea se of any

civil claim s that he m ight have asserted against T we ed. Libm an agreed to the propo sed settlem ent, and Libm an ’ s attorney drafted a

relea se-dism issal ag re em en t, w hic h L ibm ansig ne d. T he ne got ia tio ns p ro ce ed ed und er the sup er vis ion of the trial j udge assig ned to Libm an’ s case. Purs u an t to the release- dism issal agreem ent, the char ges against Libm an we re dropped, but the j udge required Libm an to p ay ba ck the $125
. 00 tha t he ha d r equir ed P ike to pa y

P awn A m er ic a to r ed ee m his sto le n j ac kham m er. T w ee d late r w ro te anot e to P ike , statin g, “ T he j udge did not agree with [L ibm an] charging y ou to buy y our tool b ack, once they found ou t it was st ol en .” (R.2 -4 6, Ex . 2.) L ibm anf ile d af ive -c ount c om pla int in the dis tr ic t c ourt, a sse rt ing c la im s f or (1) violation o f his Fourth Am endm ent right to be free f ro m u n re as onable seizures (f al se a rrest), a lle ge d a ga ins t T w ee d un de r 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83; ( 2) vio la tio n of his4

Fourth and Fourteenth Am endm ent rights, alleged against T arpley under 42 U. S. C. §§ 1 983 an d 19 88; ( 3) vio la tio n of his F ourth and F ourte en th A m en dm en t r igh ts, al le ge d a ga ins t the Ci ty

und er 42 U
. S. C. §§ 1983 and

198 8; ( 4) aG eo rg ia -l awc la im fo r de fam at ion , a lle ge d a ga ins t T w ee d; and ( 5) aG eo rg ia -l awm al ic iou s pr ose cu tio n cl ai m , a lle ge d a ga ins t T w ee d. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d su mm ar y j udgm en t t o th e d e f e n d an t s o n e a c h o f

L i b ma n ’s c l a i ms . L i b ma n ap p e a l s . We a f f i rm. T he c la im s a ga ins t T w ee d fo r vio la tio n of L ibm an ’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh ts and fo r m al ic iou s pr ose cu tio n are ba rr ed by the re le as e- dis m iss al ag re em en t. A ll of the conduct th at gives rise to t h es e claim s occurred prior to the exec ution of that ag re em en t. Ar el ea se -d ism iss al a gr ee m en t w ill be e nf or ce d if th e pa rty

se ek ing
en fo rc em en t c ansho w( 1) that i t w as e nte re d in to v oluntari ly ; ( 2) t ha t th ere is n o
ev ide nc e of

pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct ; an d ( 3) that the e nf or ce m en t of

the r el ea se is in th e p ub li c in te res t. To wn of Ne wt on v. Rume ry , 480 U
. S. 386 , 398 , 107 S
. Ct
. 11 87 , 11 9 4
- 9 5 (1 98 7) . Here, Lib m an ex ecu te d a n a gr eem en t d raft edby his own attor ne y an d unde r the supe rv isi on of the tr ia l j udge as sig ne d to the ca se . T he r el ea se
o b v i o u s l y s e rv e s t h e p ub l i c i n t e r e s t i n a v o i d i n g t h e e x p e n s e o f d e f e n d i n g c i v i l c l a i ms th atm ay or m ay no t b e m eri to rio us . Libm an argues that t he handwritten note appearing on the affidavit evidences that Twe ed lied during his war rant application, and that this lie cons titutes5

prosecutorial m iscondu ct. How ever, this argum ent i s without m erit. T he handwritten not e, w he the r it is th e res ult of am ist ak e on the part

of the w ri te r or

the de lib er at e
m isstatem ent of T we ed, m ay have l ed to Libm an’ s arre st, bu t if th at fac t establishes tha t T w ee d f

al se ly a rr es te d L ibm an , it

doe s no t a lso e sta

bli sh m isc ondu ct

in the
cr im inal pr ose cu tio n. A cc or din gly , w e fi nd n o pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct , a nd the district court properly

found the release -d ism issal agreem ent to be enforcea ble. L ibm an ’ s c la im s ag ai nst T w ee d fo r vio la tio n of his F ourth A m en dm en t r igh ts and f or
m al ic iou s pr ose cu tio n are barr ed by the r el ea se -d ism iss al a gr ee m en t. L ibm an ’ s othe r cl ai m

a ga ins t T w ee d, the G eo rg ia -l awc la im f or de fam at ion, is w ith out m er it. Tr uth is an ab sol ute de fe nse to a def am at ion cl ai m . G a. Co de A nn. § 5 1- 5- 6 (2 00 0)
. W e can fin d no st at em en t i n Twee d’s l et te r to Pik e th atis no t s ho wn to b e tr ue by asim ple glanc e at

the j udge ’ s or de r in L ibm an’s c ri m ina l c as e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr

in dis m iss ing the c la im

f or de fam at ion
. That leaves the claim s against Tarpley and the City
. W e agree with the district
co urt tha t the se c la im s la ck m er it. L ibm an ar gue s that T ar ple y is dir ec tly

r es pons ibl e fo r the a lle ge d c onst itu tio na l vi ola tio n bec au se he au tho ri ze d T w ee d to se ek aw ar rant ag ai nst L ibm an . H ow ev er , no evi de nc e ind ic at es that T ar ple y dir ec te d T w ee d to li e to o bta in the w ar

rant. T he re is nothing ev enr em ote ly unc onst itu tio na l a

bout6

perm itting an office r w ho believes he has prob able cause to arr est a suspect to seek
a warra nt forth atsu sp ect ’s arres t. T o e sta bli sh tha t T ar

ple y , T w ee d’ s su

pe rv iso r, is ind ir ec tl y lia ble f or the al l e g e d u n co n s t i tu t i o n al ac t s o f T we ed , Li b m an m u s tes t ab l i s h t h at Ta rp l ey’s be ha vio r ca

use d L ibm an ’ s a lle ge d harm . W he re , a s he re , the sup er

vi sor di d no t
ac tua lly pe rp etrate the c onst itu tio na l vi ola tio n, thi s c au sa l c onne ct ion m ay be
es ta bli she d th ro ugh ev ide nc e show ing ( 1) a his tor y of w ide spr ea d in fr ac tio ns tha t the supe rv iso r fa ile d to ac t to cor re ct ; (2) a cu sto m

or pol ic y of the sup er vis or r es ult ing in d el ibe rate ind if

fe re nc e to c onst itu tio na l vi ola tio ns; or (3 ) dire ct ionf ro m the superviso r to his subo rdinates to act un lawf ully , or knowledge of the superviso r that th ey wou ld act un la wfu ll y co up le d wi th a la ckof a ct io n t o p rev en t s uc h a ct s. B radd y
v. Fla. De

p’t of Labor

& Em pl. Sec. , 133 F. 3d 79 7, 802 (11 t h Ci r. 1998 ). A fter
re v i ew i n g t h e s u m

m ar y ju d g m en tre co rd , we fi n dn o ev i d e n c e o f T ar p l ey’s know le dge th at Tw ee d w oul d a lle ge dly li e to o bta in a

w ar rant, a nd w e fi nd n o
ev ide nc e of

a ny de lib er at e ind if

fe re nc e to c onst itu tio na l r igh ts, w he the r by virtue of T ar ple y ’ s po lic ie s and custom s or ba se d ona ny

his tor y of inf ra ct ion s by

his
s ub o r d i n a t e s . Th e d i s t r i c tc o u rtd i dn o te rr i n g r a n t i n g s u mm a ry j u d g men t t o Ta r p l e y. Si m ilarl y , to showthat the Ci ty be ar s re sponsib ili ty

f or the a lle ge d a ct s of Tweed , L ibm anw oul d have to es ta bli sh tha t the a lle ge d c onst itu tio na l vi ola tio n7

oc curr ed (1 ) pur suant to off ic ia l C ity pol ic y ; ( 2) a s th e re sul t of apol ic y de ci sio n by
a fi na l C ity

de ci sio n m ak er ; or

( 3) a s ar es ult

of ac ust om

so i ngr ai ne d inCi ty op erat io ns as t o a cq ui redth e fo rce o f of fic ia l Ci ty pol ic y . Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Serv. , 436 U. S. 658, 690-91 , 98 S
. Ct. 2018 , 2035-36 (1978 ). L ibm an has provided
no ev ide nc e show ing tha t the Ci ty ha d es ta bli she d an y pol ic y

or c ust om of a llo w ing of fi ce rs to lie to obt ai n w ar rants . L ibm ana rg ue s th at T ar ple y m ad e the de ci sio n to
se ek aw ar rant a ga ins t L ibm an , a nd tha t he w as af ina l pol ic ym ak er fo r the Ci ty , so his de ci sio n, in ef

fe ct , e sta bli she d an un co nst itu tio na l C ity pol ic y . Bu t e ve n if

that i s
as sum ed to be tr ue , T ar ple y ’ s pe rm iss ion to se ek a w ar rant w as no p er

m iss ionto lie to o bta in i t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in granti ng sum m ar y j udgm en t in fav or

of t h e C i t y. AFFIR MED.