[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12993

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

MICHAEL CHARLES WARD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES V. CHAFIN, 

Individually, 

JON FORWOOD, 

Individually, 

KENNETH W. MAULDIN, 

Individually, 

Defendants-Appellees,

JOHN DOES, 

USCA11 Case: 22-12993 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 1 of 15
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12993

Defendants.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-00111-CAR

____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After his conviction for aggravated stalking was reversed for 

violating the Double Jeopardy Clause, Michael Charles Ward sued 

the prosecutors involved in his state-court prosecution—James 

Chafin, Jon Forwood, and Kenneth Mauldin—alleging malicious 

prosecution and a conspiracy to delay the appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. The district court dismissed the case, concluding that the defendant prosecutors were entitled to both absolute prosecutorial 

immunity and qualified immunity. On appeal, Ward maintains 

that absolute immunity does not apply and that the defendants violated his clearly established rights against unreasonable seizures 

and double jeopardy. After careful review, we reject these arguments and affirm.

I. Factual Background

Ward was arrested in November 2007 for making unsolicited and alarming contacts with an ex-girlfriend who sought to end 

USCA11 Case: 22-12993 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 2 of 15
22-12993 Opinion of the Court 3

their relationship and cut off further contact. Ward v. State, 831 

S.E.2d 199, 201–02 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). He was released on a “nocontact” bond and later charged in state court with various crimes, 

including misdemeanor stalking. Id. at 202. Then, in December 

2008, after the first indictment, Ward ordered a book called “Redeeming Love” and had it delivered to the victim’s home. As a 

result, he was arrested for violating his no-contact bond and indicted on the felony offense of aggravated stalking. Id. 

In August 2009, Ward was tried on the first indictment for

misdemeanor stalking and other crimes. “Despite the evidence of

Ward’s unsolicited and alarming contacts with the victim, a jury 

acquitted him of all charges except for possession of tools in the 

commission of a crime.” Id.

After Ward’s acquittal, the state moved to “dead docket”1

the pending aggravated stalking charge, but Ward objected and the 

trial court denied the state’s request. Id. Then, in January 2010,

five months after his acquittal on the stalking and other charges, a 

jury convicted Ward of aggravated stalking, and he was sentenced 

to the maximum of ten years with credit for time served. Id. 

1 When a case is dead docketed, “prosecution is postponed indefinitely but 

may be reinstated any time at the pleasure of the court. Placing a case upon 

the dead docket certainly constitutes neither a dismissal nor a termination of 

the prosecution in the accused’s favor.” Howard v. Warden, 776 F.3d 772, 

774–75 (11th Cir. 2015) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

USCA11 Case: 22-12993 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 3 of 15
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12993

Ward timely moved for a new trial in February 2010. Following “several amendments and a lengthy delay,” the trial court 

eventually held a hearing in September 2017 and denied the motion 

in December 2017. Id. 

Ward appealed to the Georgia Court of Appeals, which reversed his conviction in a 2-1 decision. See id. at 207. The majority 

held that Ward’s aggravated stalking conviction was barred by the 

Double Jeopardy clause, given his acquittal on misdemeanor stalking in the first trial. Id. at 205–06. While the majority observed 

that sufficient untainted evidence supported the conviction, it concluded that the state ran afoul of the Double Jeopardy clause by 

relying on “the same evidence from Trial 1” and “relitigating the 

stalking charge that was necessarily decided adversely by the jury’s 

acquittal” in the first trial. Id. at 206–07. 

The dissent would have found no violation of double-jeopardy principles. In the dissent’s view, the second trial, while linking 

back to the series of events from the first case, focused on “his actions subsequent to being released on a no-contact bond order on 

November 6, 2007.” Id. at 207–08 (Goss, J., dissenting). Because 

the second trial was based on “separate acts occurring on different 

dates with additional evidence and witnesses” that were not part of 

the first trial, the dissent would have held that the prior acquittal 

did not bar Ward’s conviction for aggravated stalking. Id. 

By the time Ward’s conviction was overturned in July 2019, 

he had already served his sentence and been released. Id. at 202. 

The majority decision called out the “extraordinary postUSCA11 Case: 22-12993 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 4 of 15
22-12993 Opinion of the Court 5

conviction, pre-appeal delay”—well over seven years—pending a 

hearing on Ward’s motion for new trial. Id. at 202–03 (quotation 

marks omitted). And it stated that “all those involved in the criminal justice system,” including trial courts, prosecutors, defense 

counsel, and defendants, had a duty to ensure that post-conviction 

motions are decided “without unnecessary delay,” a duty that “unfortunately was not fulfilled in this case.” Id. at 203.

II. Procedural History

In October 2021, Ward filed suit under § 1983 againstChafin, 

Forwood, and Mauldin, the prosecutors involved in obtaining the 

now-vacated conviction. In Ward’s view, the defendants knew or 

should have known that the prosecution for aggravated stalking 

lacked probable cause and, following his acquittal, that it also violated the Double Jeopardy clause. He also alleged in conclusory 

terms that the defendants “worked in concert” with each other and 

unidentified court personnel to delay a ruling on his motion for 

new trial. Ward also brought state law claims that are not at issue 

in this appeal. 

The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

In relevant part, the court concluded that the defendants were entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity on Ward’s § 1983 claims 

because their liability was based on conduct closely associated with 

the judicial process. Alternatively, the court stated that, even if absolute immunity did not apply, the defendants were still entitled to 

qualified immunity because Ward failed to sufficiently allege a 

USCA11 Case: 22-12993 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 5 of 15
6 Opinion of the Court 22-12993

clear violation of his Fourth Amendment or double-jeopardy 

rights. Ward now appeals.

III. Discussion

We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Rehberg v. Paulk, 611 

F.3d 828, 837 n.5 (11th Cir. 2010); St. George v. Pinellas Cnty., 285 

F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002). While we assume the plaintiff’s 

factual allegations are true, we “may disregard labels and conclusions couched as factual allegations.” Doe v. Samford Univ., 29 

F.4th 675, 685 (11th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). The complaint must 

plead enough facts to permit drawing “the reasonable inference 

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009). 

After careful review, we conclude that Ward’s § 1983 claims 

against the defendant prosecutors for their pre-conviction conduct 

are barred by both absolute and qualified immunity. And the allegations of post-conviction conduct are insufficient to state a plausible § 1983 conspiracy claim. 

A. Absolute Immunity

Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from suit under § 1983 

for exercising prosecutorial functions as an advocate for the state. 

See Rehberg, 611 F.3d at 837–38. This immunity extends to “all 

activities that are intimately associated with the judicial phase of 

the criminal process,” including the initiation or continuation of a 

USCA11 Case: 22-12993 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 6 of 15
22-12993 Opinion of the Court 7

prosecution, appearances before grand juries or in other judicial 

proceedings, and the presentation of evidence. Id. (quotation 

marks omitted). It also covers preparation for those activities, including the evaluation of evidence and information. Id. at 838; see 

Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993). The purpose of 

the doctrine is to remove “impediments to the fair, efficient functioning of a prosecutorial office,” even at the cost of “depriv[ing] a 

plaintiff of compensation that he undoubtedly merits.” Van de 

Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 348 (2009). 

“If a prosecutor functions in a capacity unrelated to his role 

as an advocate for the state, [though,] he is not protected by absolute immunity but enjoys only qualified immunity.” Rehberg, 611 

F.3d at 838. For instance, “[a] prosecutor is not entitled to absolute 

immunity when he performs the investigative functions normally 

performed by a detective or police officer.” Id. (quotation marks 

omitted). He also may lose absolute immunity when he “gives advice to police during a criminal investigation,” “makes statements 

to the press,” or “acts as a complaining witness.” Van de Kamp, 

555 U.S. at 343–44. 

Here, the district court correctly found that Ward’s § 1983 

claims against the defendant prosecutors, based on their conduct 

leading to the aggravated stalking conviction, were barred by absolute immunity. Ward does not plausibly allege any wrongful conduct by the defendants unrelated to their roles as advocates for the 

state, so immunity applies. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79; Rehberg, 

611 F.3d at 837–38.

USCA11 Case: 22-12993 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 7 of 15
8 Opinion of the Court 22-12993

According to the operative amended complaint, the defendant prosecutors “reviewed and investigated” Ward’s violation of 

the no-contact order, decided to charge him with aggravated stalking without probable cause, caused a warrant to issue for his arrest, 

and presented evidence before a grand jury and obtained an indictment. Then, after Ward’s acquittal on stalking, they refused to dismiss the aggravated stalking charge they allegedly knew was barred 

by double jeopardy and instead obtained a conviction based on the 

same evidence presented at the first trial.

All this conduct is intimately associated with the judicial 

phase of the criminal process. See Rehberg, 611 F.3d at 837–38. 

Although the amended complaint labels some of it as “administrative,” “ministerial,” “investigative,” or “beyond the traditional role 

of the prosecutor,” we may disregard labels and conclusions 

couched as factual allegations. Doe, 29 F.4th at 685. “While legal 

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must 

be supported by factual allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 

The factual allegations in the amended complaint do not

permit a reasonable inference that the defendants functioned in a 

capacity unrelated to their roles as advocates for the state.2 See 

2 We reject Ward’s attempt to carve out his claims against Mauldin, a supervisory prosecutor, from the scope of absolute immunity. Because Mauldin’s 

liability depended on the conduct of subordinates in Ward’s case, for which 

absolute immunity applies, Mauldin is likewise entitled to absolute immunity. 

See Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 345–46 (2009) (explaining that 

“supervisory prosecutors are immune in a suit directly attacking their actions 

USCA11 Case: 22-12993 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 8 of 15
22-12993 Opinion of the Court 9

Rehberg, 611 F.3d at 838. There are no allegations that the defendants engaged in “functions normally performed by a detective or 

police officer,” id., nor that they acted as witnesses, spokespersons, 

or advisers, see Van de Kamp, 555 U.S. at 343. Rather, what the 

amended complaint describes are the ordinary functions involved

in initiating and continuing a prosecution, even if Ward believes 

the defendants exercised those functions wrongfully to harm him. 

But even assuming Ward is correct that the prosecution was 

baseless and should have been abandoned, “the determination of 

absolute prosecutorial immunity depends on the nature of the 

function performed, not whether the prosecutor performed that 

function incorrectly or even with dishonesty, such as presenting 

perjured testimony in court.” Hart v. Hodges, 587 F.3d 1288, 1297–

98 (11th Cir. 2009). As a result, “[a]bsolute immunity renders certain public officials completely immune from liability, even when 

their conduct is wrongful or malicious prosecution.” Id. As a result, the doctrine sometimes “deprives a plaintiff of compensation 

that he undoubtedly merits.” Van de Kamp, 555 U.S. at 348.

Because the alleged wrongful conduct concerned core prosecutorial functions, the district court correctly determined that the 

related to an individual trial,” as well as suits alleging a faulty-training or supervision claim that “rests in necessary part upon a consequent error by an 

individual prosecutor” in the plaintiff’s case). In a case like this, the same concerns that underlie prosecutorial immunity for the frontline prosecutor also 

apply to supervisory prosecutors. Id. at 346–47.

USCA11 Case: 22-12993 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 9 of 15
10 Opinion of the Court 22-12993

defendants were absolutely immune from Ward’s § 1983 claims

based on pre-conviction conduct.

B. Qualified Immunity

Even if absolute immunity does not apply, the defendant 

prosecutors are still entitled to qualified immunity. “Qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary 

governmental functions from civil liability so long as their conduct 

does not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional 

rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rehberg, 

611 F.3d at 838. “An official’s conduct violates clearly established 

law when the contours of the right are sufficiently clear that every 

reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing 

violates that right.” Echols v. Lawton, 913 F.3d 1313, 1323 (11th 

Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). At the motion-to-dismiss stage, it is appropriate to grant the “defense of qualified immunity . . . if the complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Gonzalez v. Reno, 325 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 

2003) (quotation marks omitted).

Ward appears to allege two discrete constitutional violations

based on pre-conviction conduct. First, he says that the prosecutors violated his Fourth Amendment rights because they lacked 

probable cause to believe he had committed aggravated stalking 

based solely on his act of sending a book to the victim in violation 

of the no-contact order. And second, he maintains that, after his 

acquittal for stalking, the ensuing prosecution for aggravated stalking violated his right against double jeopardy. 

USCA11 Case: 22-12993 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 10 of 15
22-12993 Opinion of the Court 11

Here, Ward has not plausibly shown the violation of a 

clearly established right. First, the arrest and prosecution were supported by arguable, if not actual, probable cause. See Grider v. City 

of Auburn, 618 F.3d 1240, 1257 (11th Cir. 2010) (“To receive qualified immunity, an officer need not have actual probable cause, but 

only ‘arguable’ probable cause.”). 

Under Georgia law, a person commits aggravated stalking if 

he contacts another person in violation of a protective order without consent and “for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the 

other person.” O.C.G.A. § 16-5-91(a). Because Ward violated the 

no-contact order following his arrest for stalking the same victim, 

there was probable cause to believe he had violated § 16-5-91(a), 

notwithstanding that the state bore the burden at trial to establish 

“a pattern of harassing and intimidating behavior” beyond “[a] single violation of a protective order.” State v. Burke, 695 S.E.2d 649, 

651 (Ga. 2010) (noting that a protective order does not necessarily 

require findings of past misconduct). Apart from alleging that certain evidence was barred on double-jeopardy grounds, Ward does 

not explain why the defendants could not reasonably have viewed 

his past conduct toward the victim as establishing the requisite pattern of harassing and intimidating behavior. While the Georgia 

Court of Appeals later found that the state’s presentation of the evidence ran afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause, that’s distinct from 

the question of whether probable cause existed. Indeed, the court 

stated that there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction 

USCA11 Case: 22-12993 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 11 of 15
12 Opinion of the Court 22-12993

had the state focused on post-arrest events. Ward, 831 S.E.2d at 

206–07. 

Second, Ward has not shown that the prosecutors violated 

his clearly established right against double jeopardy. To begin 

with, the Georgia Court of Appeals never suggested that the second indictment was improper or that the Double Jeopardy Clause 

posed an absolute bar to prosecution. Rather, in the majority’s 

view, the state ran afoul of that clause at the second trial by presenting essentially the same evidence as the first trial. See Ward, 

831 S.E.2d at 206–07. But if the state “had limited its presentation 

of the evidence to events since Trial 1,” the majority stated, “the 

evidence would have been sufficient to sustain the aggravated 

stalking charge.” Id. at 206. Because it appears the state could have 

obtained a valid conviction on the aggravated stalking charge, the 

defendants’ refusal to dismiss that charge after Ward’s acquittal

does not, by itself, establish a constitutional violation.

Not only that, but reasonable prosecutors could differ on 

whether the prior acquittal barred the presentation of evidence 

from the first trial. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 244 

(2009) (“The principles of qualified immunity shield an officer from 

personal liability when an officer reasonably believes that his or her 

conduct complies with the law.”). Ward does not identify any 

comparable case that would have provided “fair warning” that the

defendants’ conduct in the second trial violated his clearly established right against double jeopardy. See Mikko v. City of Atlanta, 

Ga., 857 F.3d 1136, 1146 (11th Cir. 2017) (“The salient question is 

USCA11 Case: 22-12993 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 12 of 15
22-12993 Opinion of the Court 13

whether the state of the law at the time of an incident provided ‘fair 

warning’ to the defendants that their alleged conduct was unconstitutional.” (quotation marks omitted)). Ward cannot prove adequate notice simply by pointing to the double-jeopardy test from 

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), because we must 

“consider the official’s conduct in the specific context of the case, 

not as broad general proposition[s].” Echols, 913 F.3d at 1323–24 

(quotation marks omitted).

Indeed, the dissenting judge’s opinion in Ward’s case shows 

that, in the specific context here, whether the second trial ran afoul 

of the Double Jeopardy clause was subject to reasonable dispute. 

See Ward, 831 S.E.2d at 207–08 (Goss, J., dissenting). As the judge 

noted, the second trial was based on an indictment charging a different act on a different date than the first trial, even if it relied on 

the same evidence to establish the requisite pattern of harassing 

and threatening behavior. See id. And the Georgia Court of Appeals has previously stated that “stalking is, by its very nature, a 

cumulative crime,” and that double jeopardy generally does not 

prohibit the state’s use of the same evidence to demonstrate a 

course of conduct in separate stalking prosecutions. Daker v. State, 

548 S.E.2d 354 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). 

While the majority in Ward distinguished Daker, noting 

that it “did not involve an acquittal,” 831 S.E.2d at 206, the state of 

the law was not so clear “every reasonable official would have understood” that prosecuting Ward for aggravated stalking after his 

acquittal of misdemeanor stalking of the same victim violated his 

USCA11 Case: 22-12993 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 13 of 15
14 Opinion of the Court 22-12993

right against double jeopardy. Echols, 913 F.3d at 1323. So if absolute immunity did not bar Ward’s claims, qualified immunity did. 

C. Conspiracy to Delay the Appeal

Finally, we assume without deciding that the defendants are 

not immune from Ward’s claim of a post-conviction conspiracy to 

delay the appeal and deprive him of a direct appeal. Even so, 

though, we affirm the dismissal of this claim because, as the district 

court observed, Ward offers nothing more than vague and conclusory allegations to support the alleged conspiracy. 

A plaintiff may bring a § 1983 claim for conspiracy to violate 

constitutional rights. Grider, 618 F.3d at 1260. To state a claim, 

the plaintiff “must show, among other things, that the defendants 

reached an understanding to violate his rights.” Rowe v. City of 

Fort Lauderdale, 279 F.3d 1271, 1283 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation 

marks omitted); see Bailey v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Alachua 

Cnty., 956 F.2d 1112, 1122 (11th Cir. 1992) (“the linchpin for conspiracy is agreement, which presupposes communication”). 

Here, considered as a whole and in the light most favorable 

to Ward, the allegations fail to plausibly establish an agreement to 

deny his rights. The allegation that, “[u]pon information and belief,” the defendant prosecutors “acted in concert with one another” and unnamed court officials to delay a hearing is simply a 

conclusory assertion devoid of factual content. The only real facts 

alleged are that the prosecutors obtained two continuances of the 

new-trial hearing in 2010 and never filed a written response. But 

USCA11 Case: 22-12993 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 14 of 15
22-12993 Opinion of the Court 15

there is no indication of an agreement to delay the appeal, of any 

joint action or communication, or of any action by the prosecutors 

from October 2010 through the date of the hearing in September 

2017.

Clearly, a breakdown or multiple breakdowns occurred in 

Ward’s case, and the resulting delay is unacceptable. But a breakdown does not require a conspiracy, however unfortunate the result. As the Georgia Court of Appeals observed, the duty to ensure 

that post-conviction motions are decided “without unnecessary delay” belongs to “all those involved in the criminal justice system,” 

not just prosecutors. Ward, 831 S.E.2d at 201–02. 

Because the existence of a conspiracy to deprive Ward’s

right is supported by nothing more than threadbare and conclusory 

allegations, Ward has not stated a plausible § 1983 conspiracy 

claim. We therefore affirm the dismissal of this claim. Rowe v. 

Schreiber, 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n.2 (11th Cir. 1998) (“We may affirm 

a decision on any adequate grounds, including grounds other than 

the grounds upon which the district court actually relied.”). 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-12993 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 15 of 15