FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT FEB RUARY 13, 2007 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. 06- 13246 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 3 4 5 - CV- J - 2 0 - TE M D O N A L D S M I T H , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s H A R R Y S H O R S T E I N , E RN E S T B E L L , L A U R A B A E R , J O H N D O E , O n e u n k n o w n D u v a l C o u n ty A s s is ta n t S ta te A tto rn e y , J A M E S M C D O N O U G H , e t a 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 13, 2007)2

B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D on al d S m i th, a F l ori da st at e pri soner procee di ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ct co u rt ’ s d i sm i ssal , p u rsu an tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e), o f h i s ci v i l ri g h t s act i o n ag ai n st v a r io u s s ta te o f

f ic ia ls . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a t f o llo w , w e a f

f irm in p a r t, a n d v a c a te a n d r e m a n d in p a rt. I . B AC KG RO UN D S m i th w as ori gi nal l y s ent ence d i n F l ori da st at e c ou rtt o fi ft ee n-ye ar s im p r is o n m e n t f

o ra tte m p te d k id n ap in g a n d s e llin g o b s c e n e m a te r ia l to am in o r . T hatse nt ence w as l at erre du ce d t o si x years . S m i th w as subsequent l y r el ea se d f r o m s ta te in c a r c e r a tio n a n d p la c e d o n c o n d itio n a l- r e le a s e s u p e rv is io n to ru n u n til F ebruary21 , 19 99 , the dat e hi s s i x-ye arse nt ence w as t o exp i re . W hi l e on rel ea se , h o w e v e r , S m ith w a s a rr e s te d f o ra n u n r e la te d m is d e m e a n o ro f f e n s e a n d c o n f

in e d in a co u n ty j ai l . A w arran tw as i ssu ed fo r S m i th ’ s v i o l at i o n o f h i s co n d i t i o n al rel ease on D ec em ber 22, 19 98 , and, af t erhe w ai ved h i s r i gh tt o a cond i t i on al -r el ea se r e voc a t i on he a r i ng, S m i th w a s r e turne d t o the c us t ody of the F l or i daD e pa r tm e ntof C orre ct i on s ( “ F D O C ”) on Janu ary 19, 19 99 . S m i th w as transfe rr ed t o the P utnam C orr e c t i ona l I ns t i tut i on ( “ P C I ” ) on J a nua ry 28, 1999. O n F e brua ry 21, 1999, S m i th’ s ori gi nal pri son sent ence expi re d, bu tS m i th rem ai ned i ncar ce ra t ed atP C I.Smith alsoraise d c laimsunder t heF e deral T or

t ClaimsAct ( “ F TCA ” ), 28 U. S.C. 1 § 2680, but beca

use none of

the def endants a re federa l officials, the FTCA is inapposite. 3 O n M ar ch 3 , 1 9 9 9 , th e F lo rid a P ar o le C o m m issio n re v o k ed S m ith ’s c ondi t i ona l r e l e a s e , a nd f orw a r de d S m i th’ s f

i l e t o F D O C a dm i ni s tr a t or s , i nc l udi ng C hr i s G or don. O n M a r c h 9, 1999, G or don not i f i e d the F l or i daD e pa r tm e ntof C hi l dr e n a nd F a m i l y S e rvi c e s ( “ D C F S ” ) tha tS m i th pot e nt i a l l y qua l i f i e d f or c om m i tm e ntunde rthe I nvol unt a ry C i vi l C om m i tm e ntof S e xua l l y V i ol e nt P re dat ors A ct(“ Ji m m y R yc e A ct ”) , F l a. S t at . A nn . § 3 94 . 91 0. “ T o b e c om m i tt ed u n d e rth e J i mmy Ry c e A c t , a n i n d i v i d u a l mu s tb e l a w f u l l y i n c a r c e r a t e d a tth e t i me c om m i tm e nti s s ought , a nd m e e tthe tw o- pr ong de f i ni t i on of as e xua l l y vi ol e nt p r e d a to r .” H a d i v . L ib e rty B e h a v io r a l H e a lth C o rp ., 9 2 7 S o . 2 d 3 4 , 3 9 ( F la . D is t. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) . O n M a r c h 1 1 , 1 9 9 9 , D C F S p s y c h o lo g is ts in te rv ie w e d S m ith to a s c e r t a i n w he the rhe qua l i f i e d f or“ J i m m y R y c e ” c om m i tm e nt . O n M a r c h 15, 19 99 , the S t at e A tt orney’ s O ff i ce ob t ai ned a w arrantfor S m i th’ s c on t i nu ed d e te n tio n u n d e rth e J im m y R y c e A c t, a n d S m ith w a s tr a n s p o r te d to M a r tin C orr e c t i ona l I ns t i tut i on ( “ M C I ” ) w he r e he w a s pl a c e d i n aJ i m m y R y c e tr e a tm e nt c e n te r . H e r e m a in e d c o n f in e d u n d e rth e A c t u n til A p r il 1 5 , 2 0 0 2 . O n A pr i l 13, 2006, S m i th f i l e d apr o s e c om pl a i ntunde r42 U . S . C . §§ 1983, 19 85 , and 1 98 6 agai nst , i n thei r i nd i vi du al capaci t i es , F l ori da S t at e A tt orney 1 H a rry S hor s t e i n, s t a t e pr os e c ut or s E rne s tB e l l a nd L aur aB a e r( c ol l e c t i ve l y , the4

“P r o s e c u to r s ” ) , J a m e s C r o s b y , J o h n M c G lau g h lin , M ik e W o rk m a n , a n d C h r is G o r d o n o f

th e FD O C, p s y c h o l o g i s t s Te d Sh a w a n d J e f f e ry Be n o i to f

th e D CFS, a n d Mo n i c aDa v i d o f

th e F l o r i d aP a r o l e C o m m i s s i o n , a n d v a r i o u s u n k n o wn corr ec t i on s off

i ce rs atP C I and M C I. S m i th cl ai m ed thatthe defendant s c on spi re d t o, a nd di d, ki dnap a nd f a l s e l y i m pr i s on hi m w i thoutl e ga l author i ty orj ur i s di c t i on i n v i ol at i on of hi s due proces s and equal prot ec t i on ri gh t s und erthe U ni t ed S t at es C ons t i tut i on. H e a l l e ge d tha the w a s i l l e ga l l yc onf i ne d be y ond the e xpi r a t i on of h is p r is o n s e n te n c e in F e b ru a ry 2 1 , 1 9 9 9 s o th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts c o u ld c iv illy c om m i thi m unde rthe J i m m y R y c e A c t

— a n A c tr e qui r i ng the s t a t e t o ha ve l a w f ul cust od y of the pers on for w ho m com m i tm enti s bei ng soug ht . S m i th further c l a i m e d tha the w a s unl aw f ul l y c onf i ne d f r om F e brua ry 21, 1999 t o A pr i l 15, 2002 w i thouta c c e s s t o al a w l i br a ry ora n a tt orne y . S m i th a l s o a l l e ge d vi ol a t i ons of st at e t ortl aw by the un kn ow n correc t i on s off i ce rs atP C I and M C I. A ft erperf

orm i ng the re qu i re d scr ee ni ng un der the P ri son L i t i gat i on R ef orm A c t, 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s u as p o n te d is m is s e d th e c o m p la in t, w i tho utprej ud i ce , on the grou nd s that : (1) the cl ai m s a gai nstthe P rose cut ors w er e barr ed by prosec ut ori al i m m un i ty, (2) the cl ai m s a gai nstthe M C I e m pl oyee s shou l d h ave been fi l ed i n the S ou thern D i stri ctof F l ori da, (3) the st at e- l aw t ort c la im s ( in c lu d in g th o s e a g a in s t th e P C I c o rr e c tio n s o f f ic e r s ) w e r e n o t c o g n iz ab le inSmith does not challeng e the dismissal of his state tort claims, nor doe s he challeng e the 2 district court’s holdingthat the claims ag ainst the offic ers at MCIwere filed in the wrong district. Accordingly, he has a bandoned thoseissues on appeal. Rowe v. Schreiber, 139 F .3d 1381, 1382 n.1 (11th Cir. 1998). 5 af e de r a l c i vi l r i ght s a c t i on, a nd ( 4) the f e de r a l c l a i m s a ga i ns tthe de f e nda nt s w ho w er e n o t e nt i t l e d t o pr os e c ut or i a l i m m uni ty w e r e t i m e - ba rr e d. S m i th m ove d f or re l i ef fr om the j ud gm entand t o al t eror am end the j ud gm ent , w hi ch the di stri ct c o u r t s u m m a r ily d e n ie d . S m ith f ile d th is ap p e a l. 2 I I . DI S CUS S I ON U n d e r§ 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is r e q u ir e d to s c r e e n c iv il c o m p la in ts f i l e d by pr i s one r s a ga i ns tgove rnm e nt a l of f i c e r s ore nt i t i e s , a nd s ha l l di s m i s s the c o mp l a i n ti f

i ti s f r i v o l o u s , f

a i l s t o s t a t e ac l a i m, o rs e e k s mo n e t a ry r e l i e f f r o m a d e f e n d a n twh o i s i m m u n e f r o m s u c h r e l i e f

. 2 8 U. S . C . § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i ) - ( i i i ) . An ac t i on i s c on si dere d “ fr i vo l ou s i f i ti s w i tho utar gu abl e m er i tei ther i n l aw or fa ct . ” B i l al v. D ri ver, 25 1 F . 3d 13 46 , 13 49 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). A n act i on i s a l so consi dere d fr i vo l ou s w hen i tappears thatthe pl ai nt i ff has l i tt l e or no chance of succ es s— that i s, w h en th e co m p l ai n to n i t s face m ak es cl earl y b asel ess al l eg at i o n s orr e l i e s on l e ga l the or i e s tha ta r e i ndi s put abl y m e r i t l e s s . S e e C a rr ol l v. G r os s , 984 F . 2d 392, 39 3 (11 th C i r. 19 93 ). B ut“ [p] ro se pl ea di ng s are hel d t o a l es s s tri ng entst andard than p l ea di ng s dra ft ed by att orneys and w i l l , there fore , be l i bera l l y c on strued. ” T annenb aum v. U ni t ed S t at es , 14 8 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 63 (11th C i r. 19 98 ).6

W e r e vi e w de novo que s t i ons c onc e rni ng the appl i c a t i on of as t a tut e of lim ita tio n s . H a rr is o n v . D ig ita l H e a lth P la n , 1 8 3 F .3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 3 8 ( 1 1 th C ir .1 9 9 9 ) . W e l i kew i se re vi ew de no vo a di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof absol ut e i m m un i ty. S ee S c a rb r o u g h v . My l e s , 2 4 5 F . 3 d 1 2 9 9 , 1 3 0 2 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) . An d we r e v i e w a di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s uas pont e di s m i s s a l of ac l a i m a s f

r i vol ous unde r§ 1915( e ) f or abus e of di s c r e t i on. B i l a l , 251 F . 3d a t1349.

A . P rose cu tori al Im m u n i ty “A p r o s e c u to ris e n title d to ab s o lu te im m u n ity f o ra ll a c tio n s h e ta k e s w h ile pe r f orm i ng hi s f

unc t i on a s a n a dvoc a t e f orthe gove rnm e nt . ” R i ve r av. L e a l , 359 F . 3d 1350, 1353 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . S uc h abs ol ut e i m m uni ty e xt e nds t o a pr os e c ut or ’ s a c t s pe r f

orm e d “ i n pr e pa r i ng f

orthe i ni t i a t i on of

j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs or for tri al , and w hi ch occur i n the course of hi s r ol e a s an adv ocat e f or the S t at e. ” J o n e s v . Ca n n o n , 1 7 4 F. 3 d 1 2 7 1 , 1 2 8 1 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( c i t a t i o n s o mi tt e d ) . So l ong a s s uc h a c t s a r e w i thi n the “ s c ope a nd t e rr i t or i a l j ur i s di c t i on of hi s of f i c e , ” the pr os e c ut ori s i m m une f

r om a n a c t i on f

orda m a ge s unde r§ 1983. E l de rv. A th e n s - C la rk e C o u n ty , G a . T h r o u g h O ’L o o n e y , 5 4 F .3 d 6 9 4 , 6 9 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) .

“ A l tho ug h absol ut el y i m m un e f or ac t i on s t aken as an advo ca t e, the prosecut or has o n ly q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity w h e n p e r f o rm in g af

u n c tio n th a t is n o t a s s o c ia te d w ith h is r o le a s a n a d v o c a te f

o rth e s ta te .” J o n e s , 1 7 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 1 - 8 2 ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) .7

T h u s , wh e n d e t e rm i n i n g wh e th e rap r o s e c u t o ri s e n t i t l e d t o ab s o l u t e i m m u n i ty , we l ook t o “ the na tur e of

the f unc t i on pe r f

orm e d, notthe i de nt i ty of the a c t orw ho pe r f orm e d i t . ” B uc kl e y v. F i t z s i m m ons , 509 U . S . 259, 269, 113 S . C t . 2606, 2613, 1 2 5 L .E d .2 d 2 0 9 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . H ere, S m i th arg u es th atth e P ro secu t o rs are n o ten t i t l ed t o i m m u n i ty b ecau se i n the i re f

f ort s t o ha ve hi m c i vi l l y c om m i tt e d, the y a c t e d i n the c l e a rabs e nc e of j uri sdi ct i on as S m i th w as no t“ se rvi ng a s ent ence i n the cust od y of” the F D O C at the t i m e c i vi l c om m i tm e ntw a s s ought . B utthe “ c l e a rabs e nc e of j ur i s di c t i on” e xc e pt i on t o abs ol ut e i m m uni ty appl i e s t o j ud ges , no tt o p rose cut ors, and i tre fe rs t o j uri sdi ct i on ov erthe subj ec t m at ter . D y ke s v. H os e m a nn, 776 F . 2d 942, 946- 949 ( 11th C i r . 1985) . B y c ontr a s t , apr os e c ut ori s e nt i t l e d t o abs ol ut e i m m uni ty f or a c t i ons t a ke n i n hi s r ol e a s agove rnm e nta dvoc a t e a nd tha ta r e w i thi n the “ s c ope a nd te r r ito r ia l ju r is d ic tio n o f h is o f f ic e .” E ld e r , 5 4 F .3 d a t 6 9 5 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . N o th in g in th e r e c o r d in d ic a te s th a t th e P r o s e c u to r s h e r e a c te d o u ts id e o f th e ir te r r ito r ia l j u r i s d i c t i o n . Th u s , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tp r o p e r l y d i s mi s s e d Smi th ’ s c l a i ms a g a in s t th e P r o s e c u to r s — B a e r , B e ll, a n d S h o r s te in

— a s th e y a r e e n title d to ab s o lu te p ro secu t o ri al i m m u n i ty. B. St a t ut e o f Li m i t a t i o ns T he e xpi r a t i on of

the s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons w a rr a nt s di s m i s s i ng ac om pl a i nt8

a s f r iv o lo u s . C la rkv . G a . P a r d o n s a n d P a r o le s B d ., 9 1 5 F .2 d 6 3 6 , 6 4 1 n . 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . B u t “[ t]o d is m is s ap r is o n e r ’s c o m p la in t a s tim e - b a rr e d p r io rto se rvi ce , i tm ustappear bey on d a do ub tfr om the com pl ai nti t se l f that[the pri soner] can p rove no se tof fa ct s w hi ch w ou l d avo i d a st atut e of l i m i t at i on s bar . ” H ug hes v. L ott , 35 0 F . 3d 11 57 , 11 63 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). Th e l e n g th o f

th e l i mi t a t i o n s p e r i o d g o v e rn i n g a c t i o n s u n d e r4 2 U . S. C. §§ 1983 a nd 1985 i s di c t a t e d by s t a t e l a w . C happe l l v. R i c h, 340 F . 3d 1279, 1283 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . A c c or di ngl y , F l or i da ’ s f our - y e a rs t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons f

or pe r s ona l i nj urya c t i ons appl i e s t o S m i th’ s §§ 1983 a nd 1985 c l a i m s . I d. S e c t i on 19 86 ac t i on s m ustbe brou gh t“ w i thi n o ne ye araf t erthe cause of a ct i on has a c c ru e d .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 6 . T h e q u e s tio n o f w h e n th e lim ita tio n s p e r io d b e g in s to run ( tha ti s , w he n the c aus e of a c t i on ha s a c c rue d) , i s one of f e de r a l l a w . R oz a rv. M u l l i s, 8 5 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 1 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 6 ). T h e g en eral fed eral ru l e i s th ata cau se of a c t i on “ w i l l nota c c rue , a nd the r e by s e tthe l i m i t a t i ons c l oc k runni ng, unt i l the pl a i nt i f f s know ors houl d know ( 1) tha tthe yha ve s uf f e r e d the i nj ury tha tf

orm s the ba s i s of the i rc om pl a i nta nd ( 2) w ho ha s i nf l i c t e d the i nj ury . ” C happe l l , 340 F . 3d at12 83 (c i t i ng M ul l i nax v . M c E l henn y, 81 7 F . 2d 71 1, 71 6 (11 th C i r. 19 87 )) . In anal yz i ng thi s i ss ue, a c ou rtm ustfi rs ti dent i fythe al l eged i nj uri es , and then de t e rm i ne w he n the pl a i nt i f f c oul d ha ve s ue d f

orthe m . R oz a r , 85 F . 3d a t562.In B onner v . City of Pricha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (en b anc ), thi s 3 court adopted as bindingprec edent all decisions handed down by the former F ifth Circuit before the close of

business on September 30, 1981. 9 A n except i on t o the general rul e i s the “ cont i nu i ng vi ol at i on ” doctri ne. S ee L ov ettv. R ay , 32 7 F . 3d 11 81 , 11 83 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). W hen the vi ol at i on al l eged i nvol ve s c ont i nui ng i nj ury , the c aus e of a c t i on a c c rue s , a nd the l i m i t a t i on pe r i od begi ns t o run , atthe t i m e the un l aw ful cond uctce as es . D on al dson v. O ’ C on no r, 4 9 3 F . 2 d 5 0 7 , 5 2 9 (5 th C i r. 1 9 7 4 ) (h o l d i n g th ata § 1 9 8 3 act i o n b ro u g h tb y a 3 f o rm e rm e n ta l p a tie n t f

o rc o n tin u o u s c iv il c o n f in e m e n t w ith o u t p s y c h ia tr ic tr e a tm e ntdi d nota c c rue unt i l the pa t i e ntw a s r e l e a s e d) , va c a t e d on othe rgr ounds by O ’ C on no r v. D on al dson , 42 2 U . S . 56 3, 95 S . C t . 24 86 , 45 L . E d. 2d 39 6 (19 75 ); S a nt i a go v. L y ke s B r os . S . S . C o. , 986 F . 2d 423, 426 ( 11th C i r . 1993) ( di s c us s i ng D o n a ld s o n ) ; A b if

f v . S la to n , 8 0 6 F . S u p p . 9 9 3 , 9 9 6 ( N .D . G a . 1 9 9 2 ) ( h o ld in g th a t a f o rm e rp r is o n e r ’s § 1 9 8 3 c la im f o rth e s ta te ’s f

a ilu r e to im m e d ia te ly r e le a s e h im f r om s t a t e pr i s on ortr a ns f e rhi m t o c ounty j a i l a f

t e rhi s s e nt e nc e w a s va c a t e d on appe a l w a s ac ont i nui ng vi ol a t i on tha tt ol l e d the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od) , a f f’ d, 3 F . 3d 44 3 (11 th C i r. 19 93 ). O n app ea l , S m i th argues thatbecause hi s s i x-ye arpri son sent ence had expi re d o n F ebruary21 , 19 99 , hi s c on t i nu ed i ncar ce ra t i on af t erthatdat e w as un l aw ful so thatw hen st at e off i ci al s c om m ence d p roce edi ng s ( som e t i m e i n M ar ch10

o f 1 9 9 9 ) t o h av e h i m ci v i l l y co m m i tt ed , h e w as n o t la w fu lly i ncar ce ra t ed as r e qui r e d by F l or i dal a w . S e e H a di , 927 S o. 2d a t39. W e c onc l ude tha tS m i th do es a l l e ge ac ont i nui ng vi ol a t i on tha tdi d note nd unt i l he w a s r e l e a s e d on A pr i l 15, 20 02 . T hu s, w i th regard t o h i s §§ 1 98 3 and 19 85 ac t i on s, thi s c l ai m i s nott i m ebarr ed because S m i th fi l ed hi s c om pl ai nton A pri l 13 , 20 06

— l es s than fou r y ears a f t e rhi s c aus e of

a c t i on ha d a c c rue d. B utS m i th’ s § 1986 a c t i on is t i m e- barr ed be c aus e § 1986 a c t i ons m us tbe br ought“ w i thi n one y e a ra f t e rthe c aus e of

a c t i on h a s a c c ru e d .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 6 . I I I . CONCL US I ON F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e AF F I RM th e d i s mi s s a l o f Smi th ’ s c l a i ms agai nstthe P rose cut ors— B ae r, B el l , and S ho rs t ei n, and w e AF F I RM the di sm i ss al of S m i th’ s § 19 86 ac t i on agai nstthe re m ai ni ng defe nd ant s. W e VA C A TE the d i sm i ssal o f S m i th ’ s § § 1 9 8 3 an d 1 9 8 5 cl ai m s ag ai n stB en o i t , D av i d , C ro sb y, G ordo n, M cG l augh l i n, S haw , and W orkm an re gardi ng hi s app roxi m at el y three ye arci vi l confi nem entun der the Ji m m y R yc e A ct , and w e RE MAND for f urther p ro ceed i n g s.