FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT APR 9, 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- 14897 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -000 75 -C V -W L S -1 AN T OI NE MOOD Y, P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, ve r s us C I T Y O F A L B A N Y , G E O R G I A , e t a l., D efen d an t s, J OE ME S S E R , S C OT T MUL L E N, i n d i v i d u al l y an d i n th ei r o ffi ci al cap aci t i es, D efen d an t s-A p p el l ees.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

________________________ ( A p r i l 9, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d H IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es.The c harg es were subse quently dropped. 1 2 P E R C U R I A M: A nt oi ne M oody a ppe a l s the gr a ntof s um m a r y j udgm e ntt o de f e nda nt O f f ic e r s J o e M e s s e ra n d S c o tt M u lle n o f th e C ity o f

A lb a n y P o lic e D e p a r tm e n t, in the i ri ndi vi dua l c apa c i t i e s , on M oody ’ s c l a i m s unde r42 U . S . C . § 1983, § 1985 a nd § 1986 f orc ons pi r a c y t o vi ol a t e hi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s a nd f orm a l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on. T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d s um m a r y j udgm e ntt o M e s s e ra nd M ul l e n, ho l di ng thatthere w as no evi dence i n t he re cord fr om w hi ch t o con cl ud e thatthey j oi ned a conspi ra cyt o m al i ci ou sl y prose cut e or deny M oo dy of any c on st i tut i on al r i g h t s . Fo rth e f

o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s , w e s h a l l a f f i r m. I. T he c a s e a r i s e s outof

a n i nc i de nti n w hi c h M oody w a s a r r e s t e d f or obs truc t i on of

j us t i c e f ora l l e ge dl y i nt e r f

e r i ng dur i ng the c our s e of the a r r e s tof

the dr i ve rof a c a ri n w hi c h M oody w a s a pa s s e nge r . T he ve hi c l e w a s s t oppe d by 1 M es se r a nd M ul l en, offi ce rs of the A l bany P ol i ce D epar tm ent(the “ ci ty off i ce rs ”) , a n d , a s h o r t w h ile la te r , tw o D o u g h e r ty C o u n ty S h e r if f’s D e p u tie s ( th e “c o u n ty de put i e s ” ) a r r i ve d on the s c e ne . M e s s e ra s ke d the c ounty de put i e s i f the y ha d a m ac hi ne t o u se i n adm i ni st er i ng a f i el d sob ri ety t es t . T he coun ty deput i es re pl i ed tha tthe y di d a nd gotoutof the i rve hi c l e t o a dm i ni s t e rthe t e s t . A ts om e poi nt , theMoody does not alleg e that he suf fered any injury requiringmedical attention. 2 3 c ounty de put i e s a dm i ni s t e r e d a f i e l d s obr i e ty t e s ton the dr i ve r , M or r i s on. M e a nw hi l e , how e ve r , a n a r gum e nte rupt e d be tw e e n the oc c upa nt s i n the ve hi c l e a nd the c ounty de put i e s a nd c i ty of f i c e r s . A l though the e xa c tr e a s on a nd nature of the ar gu m enti s di sput ed by the part i es , M oo dy adm i t s thathe began ye l l i ng atthe depu t i es and o ff i ce rs . M oo dy cl ai m s thathe w as pu shed and sho ved w h i l e b ei n g p u l l ed o u to f th e car an d p l aced u n d er arrest by the co u n ty d ep u t i es. 2 M oo dy w as char ged w i th o bstruct i on of a pol i ce offi ce r bec ause hi s c on du ct a lle g e d ly in te r f

e r e d w ith th e c o u n ty d e p u tie s ’ a tte m p t to c o n d u c t a f ie ld s o b r ie ty t esto n M o rri so n . In ad d i t i o n , M o o d y’ s co n d u ctp rev en t ed th e co u n ty d ep u t i es f r o m ta lk in g to M o r r is o n a n d h e a r in g h is r e s p o n s e s . M o o d y cl ai m s, h o w ev er, th ath e w as arrested b ecau se h e refu sed t o p ro m i se no tt o reportthe depu t i es ’ exce ss i ve use of f orce on bo th h i m se l f a nd the ot her o cc u p an ts o f th e c ar in re tu rn fo r th e d ro p p in g o f a ll ch ar g es ag ain st th e c ar ’s occupant s. M oo dy cl ai m s thatthe coun ty deput i es and t he ci ty off i ce rs ent er ed i nt o a c ons pi r a c y t o “ c ove rup, hi de , a nd ke e p s e c r e tthe m i s c onduc tof the de f e nda nt s ” dur i ng the i nc i de nta nd t o m a l i c i ous l y pr os e c ut e hi m f orr e f us i ng t o go a lo n g w ith th e c o n s p ir a c y . II .The district cour t corre ctly

held that Moody ’s attempt to cre ate a n issue of fact here by 3 the subsequent proffer of a “sham a ffidavit” directly contradicting this ea

rlier swor n testimony was to be rejec ted. 4 F i r s t , w i th r e s pe c tt o M oody ’ s c l a i m tha tthe de f e nda nt s c ons pi r e d t o de pr i ve hi m of hi s c on st i tut i on al ri gh t s, w e a gree w i th t he di stri ctcourtthatM oo dy offe rs a bs ol ut e l y no e vi de nc e tha te i the rc i ty of f i c e re nt e r e d i nt o a ny c ons pi r a c y ort ook a ny a c tt o de pr i ve hi m of a c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght . A tm os t , M oody of f e r s onl y va gue s pe c ul a t i on a s t o w ha tthe c ounty de put i e s a nd the c i ty of f i c e r s di s c us s e d dur i ng the i nc i de nt . M oody of f e r s nota s i ngl e s hr e d of e vi de nc e of

a c ons pi r a c y be y ond thi s s pecul at i on . O n t he cont ra ry , M oo dy’ s s w orn d eposi t i on t es t i m on y w as that he obs e r ve d onl y the tw o c ounty de put i e s t a l ki ng t o e a c h othe ri m m e di a t e l y pr i or t o one of the m a ppr oa c hi ng hi m w i th the s ugge s t i on of tr a di ng f r e e dom ( dr oppi ng of al l char ges) for s i l ence abou tany off i ci al m i sc on du ct . In the com pl et e absence 3 o f e v id e n c e o f

a n y a g r e e m e n t b e tw e e n th e c o u n ty d e p u tie s a n d th e c ity o f f ic e r s to d e p r iv e h im o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t, M o o d y ’s c la im m u s t f a il. A ddi t i ona l l y , M oody doe s nots t a t e a c l a i m unde rS e c t i on 1985 be c a us e he do es no tal l ege, as i tre qu i re s, thatdefe nd ant ’ s a l l eged m i sc on du ctw as a c c o m p a n ie d o rm o tiv a te d b y r a c ia l a n im u s . Se e G r i f f i n v . B r e c k i nr i dge , 4 0 3 U . S. 8 8 (1 9 7 1 ). M o o d y’ s cl ai m i s m erel y th atth e ci ty o ffi cers acted o u to f sel f-i n t erest i n a n a t t e m ptt o c ove rup the i ra l l e ge d e xc e s s i ve us e of f or c e . S uc h a l l e ga t i ons doMoody ’s Section 1986 claim, failure to prevent a Section 1985 violation, fails in the 4 absenc e of a

valid Section 1985 claim. See 42 U.S.C. § 1986. These deputies werenamed de fenda nts but Moody

settled with them and they were 5 dismiss ed. Additionally , this state law claim may not be pursued in the a

bsenceof any

evidenc e, as 6 here , that the def

endant wa s actually

prosecuted. W

alker v. Bishop, Georgia Kraft Co., v. Bishop , 169 Ga. App. 236 ( 1983). 5 no tst at e acl ai m un der S ec t i on 19 85 . N or di d M oo dy al l ege a ny fa ct s f rom w hi ch 4 s uc h r a c i a l a ni m us c oul d be i nf e r r e d. M oody ’ s c l a i m f

orm a l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on m us tf a i l be c a us e he w a s not arre st ed by these defe nd ant s. T he coun ty deput i es w er e the on es w ho arre st ed M oo dy, tra nspo rt ed hi m t o j ai l and b oo ked h i m . T he re cord evi dence w as that 5 nei ther M es se r nor M ul l en ever t ou ched or even spok e t o M oo dy du ri ng the ent i re in c id e n t. 6 F i ndi ng no m e r i ti n a ny of M oody ’ s othe rc l a i m s of c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i on, the di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof sum m ary j ud gm entt o d ef endant s i s due t o b e AF F I R ME D.