FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L19, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 24 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :1 1- cv -0 01 29 -MP -WCS STEPHEN FREDRIC GANSTINE, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us JOHNNY W ILLIAMS, Co un ty A dm in is tra to r Gad sd enCo un ty Flor id a, ARMANDO GARCIA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 19 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:St ep he n F redric Gans ti ne , a fo rm er Fl or id a p ris on er p ro ceed in g pr o s e ,

ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s su a s po nt e di sm is sa l o f hi s 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m

up onwhi chrel ie f m ay

be gra nt ed , as wel l as th e co urt’s de ni al of h is reque stforlea ve to am en d h is co m pl ai nt . After r ev ie w, we affi rm . Gan st in e was co nv ic te d i n 2 00 7 o f ag gr av at edass au ltwith afir earm in Fl or id a an d was sen te nc edto serve th ree years’ im pr is on m en t, wh ic h h e h ad se rv edat t he ti m e h e fi le d s ui t. Inhi s co m pl ai nt , Gans ti ne all eg edth atth e pr os ecu to r in hi s cr im in al cas e en ga ge d i n m is co nduc t, an d tha t d efen da ntJo hn ny W il li am s, the Co un ty A dm in is tra to r fo r Gad sd enCo un ty, Fl or id a, co ul d b e h el d acco un tabl e. He als o a ll eg edth athi s d efen se co un se l, d efen dantArm an do Garci a, pr ov id edin effe ct iv e as si st an ce attri al . A m ag is tra te jud ge is su eda Rep ort an d R eco m m en da ti on(R&R ) reco m m en di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt su a s po nt e di sm is s Gan st in e’s co m pl ai nt . Gan st in e o bjec te d t o t he R&R a ndso ug htlea ve to am en d h is co m pl ai ntto in cl ud e Gad sd enCo un ty as a d efen dant . The d is tri ctco urt o ve rru le d Gan st in e’s ob jecti on s an d d is m is se d h is co m pl ai nt , fin di ng th athe fai le d t o a ll eg e an y un la wfu l ac ti on by W il li am s, an d t ha t the do ctrin e o f resp on de at su pe ri or di d n ot pr ov id e a b as is forreco ve ry un de r § 1 98 3 a ga in stW il li am s fo r th e al le ge d pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t. The co urt al so fou ndth atGarci a’s rep res en ta ti on of 2Gan st in e d idno t co ns ti tu te “ st at e act io n” forpu rp os es of § 19 83 li ab il it y . Fin al ly,

th e co urt fo un d t ha t Gan st in e’s reque stto am en d h is co m pl ai ntto in cl ud e Gad sd en Co un ty w as fut il e b ecau se th e Co un ty cou ldno t b e h el d l iabl e fo r th e al le ge d pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t b as edon Gans ti ne ’s all eg at io ns . Gan st in e fi le d aRu le 59 (e) m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d t he jud gm en t, ar gu in g th athi s § 19 83 act io n s ho ul d b e tr eat edas ape ti ti onfora writof h ab eas co rp us . He al so arg ue d t ha t h e was no t b as in g h is all eg at io ns ag ai ns t Will ia m s o n a resp on de at

su pe ri or th eo ry of l iabi li ty. Fin di ng bo th gro un ds m eri tl es s, the di st ric t co urt d en ie d Gan st in e’s m ot io n. Th is is Gans ti ne ’s app eal . Gan st in e rai se s fo uris su es on ap pe al . He firs t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt sh ou ldha ve tre at edhi s co m pl ai ntas ape ti ti on forwritof h ab eas co rp us be cau se hi s ac ti on att ack edth e v al id it y of h is co nv ic ti on . Buthe als o c on ced es th athe is no lo ng er i n c us to dy. Bec au se habe as co rp us rel ie f is on ly avai labl e to in di vi du al s

“ in cu st od y

pu rs ua ntto th e jud gm en t o f a St at e co urt,” 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (a), an d Gan st in e is no t i n c us to dy, the di st ric t co urt was co rrec t t o d ecl in e to co ns tru e h is co m pl ai ntas ahabe as pe ti ti on . Seco nd , Gans ti ne arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredindi sm is si ng hi s co m pl ai nt , arg ui ng th atW il li am s ca n, i n fa ct , be h el d l iabl e fo r th e p ro se cu to r’s al le ge d m is co nduc t attri al . W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f a 3co m

pl ai ntun de r Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m , “ acce pt in g t he al le ga ti on s i n t he co m

pl ai ntas t ru e an d c on st ru in g t he m inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ff.” Fin . Sec . Ass ur an ce, In c. v. St ep he ns , Inc . , 50 0 F .3d12 76 , 12 82 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . Alth ou gh su a s po nt e di sm is sa l i s d is fav or ed , rev ers al is no t m an da te d wh ere t he co m pl ai ntis “pa te nt ly friv ol ou s o r if rev ers al wou ldbe fu ti le .” Tazo e v. Air bu s S.A.S. , 63 1 F .3d13 21 , 13 36 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Becau se Gans ti ne is pr o s e , we li be ral ly con st ru e h is pl ead in gs . Hughes v. Lo tt , 35 0 F .3d11 57 , 11 60 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Gan st in e arg ue s t ha t Will ia m s ac te d i n asupe rv is ory rol e wit h re sp ectto Gad sd enCo un ty pro se cu to rs an d i s the refo re l iabl e fo r th os e p ro se cu to rs ’ m is co nduc t. Supe rv is ory off ic ia ls m ay

be li ab le un de r § 1 98 3 fo r th e act s o f th ei r subo rd in at es on ly whe n “ th e supe rv is orpe rs on al ly part ic ip at es inth e al le ge d un co ns ti tu ti on al co nduc t o r whe n t he re i s a c au sa l co nn ect io n b etweenth e act io ns of a supe rv is in g o ffi ci al an d t he all eg edco ns ti tu ti on al de pr iv at io n.” Co tt on e v. Jen ne , 32 6 F .3d13 52 , 13 60 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Gans ti ne do es no t al le ge th at W il li am s p ers on al ly part ic ip at edinth e p ur po rte d p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t. An d Gan st in e cansu ffi ci en tl y pl eada cau sa l co nn ect io n b etweenW il li am s’s ac ti on s an d t he pu rp orte d p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t o nl y by citi ng “ a h is to ry

of wid es pr eadab us e” tha t p utW il li am s o n n ot ic e o f th e n eedto co rrec t the pro bl em , 4orby alle gi ng th atW il li am s’s cu st om or p ol ic y res ul te d i n “ de li be rat e in di ffer en ce to co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s.” Id . Gans ti ne m ad e n ei th er o f th es e al le ga ti on s. Th e di st ric t co urt the refo re p ro pe rly dis m is se d h is § 1 98 3 c la im ag ai ns t Will ia m s. Thi rd , Gans ti ne co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinco nc lu di ng th at Garci a was no t a s ta te act orforpu rp os es of § 19 83 . “ To es tabl is h acla im un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3, a p la in ti ff m us t p ro ve (1) a vi ol at io n o f a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht , an d (2 ) th atth e al le ge d v io la ti on was c omm it te d b y a pe rs on act in g u nd er co lo r of st at e la w.” Holmes v. Cr os by , 41 8 F .3d12 56 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). “ [A] pub li c de fen de r do es no t ac t und er co lo r of st at e la w when pe rfo rm in g t he lawyer’ s tra di ti on al fun ct io ns as c ou ns el to a de fen da ntina cri m in al pro ceed in g.” Polk Cn ty . v. Dod

so n , 45 4 U.S. 3 12 , 32 5 (1 98 1) . Thu s, Garc iawas n otact in g u nd er 1 co lo r of st at e la w when he serve d a s Gan st in e’s tr ia l co un se l. Bec au se Garci a was no t ac ti ng un de r co lo r of

st at e la w, Gans ti ne can no t p ro pe rly all eg e th atGarci a’s pu rp orte d i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e g av e ri se to § 1 98 3 l iabi li ty. The d is tri ctco urt th eref or e p ro pe rly dis m is se d Gan st in e’s cl ai m ag ai ns t Gar ci a. Last ly, Gan st in e as se rts th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinde nyin g h is m ot io n fo r le av e to am en d h is co m pl ai nt . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n Contrary to Ganstine’s a ssertion, the Supreme Court’ s opinion in Cuyler v. Sullivan , 446 1 U.S. 335 (1980), does not hold otherw ise. 5to am en d aco m pl ai ntforanab us e o f di sc ret io n. Hal l v. Un it ed Ins . Co. o f Am. , 36 7 F .3d12 55 , 12 62 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). The d en ia l o f le av e to am en d i s n otan ab us e o f di sc ret io n i f am en dm en t wo ul d b e fu ti le . Id. at 1 26 3. Here , Gans ti ne as ke d t o a m en d h is co m

pl ai ntto ad d Gad sd enCo un ty as a d efen da nt , bu t d oi ng so wou ldbe fut il e b ecau se an y cla im s ag ai ns t the Co un ty w ou ldfai l fo r th e sa m e reas on s Gan st in e’s cl ai m s fa il edag ai ns t Will ia m s. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g Gan st in e’s reque stforlea ve to am en d. AFFIRMED.

6