FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT May 12, 2008 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. 07- 14711 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 6 8 9 - CV- J - 3 2 - HTS O R V E L L L O Y D , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C L A R E N C E J A K E C A R D , J A R R E T T H O D G E S , D A L L A S P A L A C E K , V I N C E E D W A R D S , K E I T H W H A L E Y , e t a l., a l l s ue d i n the i rof

f i c i a l a nd in d iv id u a l c ap a c itie s , 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

_________________________ ( M ay 12, 2008)2

B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an dP R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: O rvel L l oyd, a s t at e pri soner, appeal s pro se the part i al di sm i ss al and p art i al s u m m a ryju d g m e n t a g a in s t L lo y d ’s c o m p la in t th a t h is c iv il r ig h ts w e r e v io la te d in the event s thatl ed t o h i s prose cut i on and con vi ct i on for posse ss i on of cocai ne. S ee 4 2 U . S. C. § 1 9 8 3 . W e a f f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D A ft erthe arre stof D arry l John son for po ss es si on of cr ac k cocai ne, N as sau C ou nty D eputy S heri ff

B ri an T urner s earc hed Joh nson and d i sc ov er ed three c o u n te r f e it $ 5 b ills in J o h n s o n ’s p o c k e t. J o h n s o n a n dtw o c o h o rts , P h illip C r a f t, and D evi n P op ham , prov i ded st at em ent s t o l ocal autho ri t i es and S ec re tS ervi ce A ge ntJ a s on L y nc h tha ti m pl i c a t e d L l oy d i n ac ount e r f e i t i ng s c he m e . J ohns on l at er co n sen t ed t o a search o f h i s trai l er, w h ere au th o ri t i es d i sco v ered co m p u t ers, p ri n t ers, a scan n er, a co m m erci al p ap er cu tt er, an db i l l t em p l at es. D e putyD a l l a s P a l e c e k obt a i ne d as e a r c h w a rr a ntf orL l oy d’ s hom e a nd the s urr oundi ng pr ope rtyus i ng i nf orm a t i on pr ovi de d byJ ohns on. D e put i e s P a l a c e k, L ucer o, R yan V an T as se l l , V i nce E dw ar ds, and K ei th W hal eydi sc ov er ed se vera l w e apons a nd as t ol e n a l l - t e rr a i n ve hi c l e on L l oy d’ s pr ope rty . D ur i ng the s e a r c h, th e d e p u tie s o b s e rv e dac a rth a t m a tc h e dth e d e s c r ip tio n o f L lo y d ’s v e h ic le s lo w ly3

ap p ro ach L l o yd ’ s d ri v ew ay, th en race aw ay. S e c r e tS e rvi c e a ge ntP aul E l l i ott , w ho w a s i nve s t i ga t i ng the c ount e r f e i t i ng s c he m e , i ns truc t e d de put i e s C l a r e nc e C a r d, V a n T a s s e l l , E dw a r ds , W ha l e y , C l i f t on M c D o n a ld , a n dD a v idG r if f ith to p u r s u e th e v e h ic le . W h e n L lo y da tte m p te dto f l e e on f oot , the de put i e s c aptur e d hi m . D e put i e s W ha l e y , T om m yS e a gr a ve s , a nd J a rr e tt H o d g e s s e iz e dc r a c kc o c a in e a n dc o u n te r f e it b ills , w h ic h w e r e s ittin g in pl a i n vi e w i ns i de L l oy d’ s ve hi c l e . L l oy d w a s a rr e s t e d a nd c ha r ge d w i th gr a nd th e f t, p o s s e s s io n o f

af ir e a rm b yac o n v ic te df

e lo n , p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e c oc a i ne , pos s e s s i on of c oc a i ne , a nd pos s e s s i on of i ns trum e nt s t o f

or ge coun t er fe i tm on ey . S ee F l a. S t at . §§ 79 0. 23 , 81 2. 01 4(2)(c ), 83 1. 18 , 83 1. 28 (2)( a) , 89 3. 13 (1)( a) 1. , (6)( a) . L l oy d f i l e d pr e - tr i a l m ot i ons i n s t a t e c ourtc ha l l e ngi ng the pr obabl e c aus e f or the se ar ch w arrantand h i s arr es t , the val i di ty of the se ar ch w arrant , and the se ar ch of hi s property. T he tri al courtdeni ed the m ot i on s, and a F l ori da appel l at e c ou rt a f f i rm e d. J ohns on the n pl e a de d nol o c ont e nde r e t o pos s e s s i on of c oc a i ne , a nd the s t a t e nol pr os s e d the r e m a i ni ng c ha r ge s . L l oy d l a t e rc ha l l e nge d hi s gui l typl e ai n a s ta te c o lla te r a l p r o c e e d in g . A F lo r id aap p e lla te c o u rt a f f irm e dth e d e n ia l o f

p o s tconv i ct i on re l i ef

. L lo y df ile dac o m p la in t a g a in s t th e S h e r if f , s e v e r a l d e p u tie s , s ta te4

prosec ut ors, fe dera l agent s, and L l oyd’ s f orm erdefe nse c ou nsel . L l oyd al l eged tha tde put i e s C a r d, V a n T a s s e l l , P a l e c e k, W ha l e y , E dw a r ds , G r i f f i th, M c D ona l d, S heri ff R ayG ei ger, and p rose cut or G ranv i l l e B urgess used i nform at i on prov i ded by John son thatthey knew t o b e f al se t o execut e an aff

i davi t , ob t ai n a se ar ch w a rr a n t, s e a r c h a n ds e iz e e v id e n c e f r o m L lo y d ’s h o m e a n dv e h ic le , a n din c a r c e r a te a nd pr os e c ut e L l oy d. L l oy d c ont e nde d tha tS he r i f f G e i ge ra l s o f

a i l e d t o tr a i n a nd s upe rvi s e hi s e m pl oy e e s . L l oy d a s s e rt e d tha tde put i e s W ha l e y , S e a gr a ve s , a nd H o d g es p l an t ed ev i d en ce i n h i s v eh i cl e. L l o ydal l eg ed th ath i s fo rm er d efen se a tto rn e y , R o n a ldD a v is I I , c o n s p ir e dw ith s ta te p r o s e c u to rG a r d e n D a r in to e lic it L l oy d’ s gui l typl e a . L l oy d c ont e nde d tha tde put i e s S e a gr a ve s a nd H odge s a nd prosec ut or B urgess deni ed L l oyd’ s i nv es t i gat or, C al vi n M i t chel l , and att orney D a vi s a c c e s s t o L l oy d a nd t o e vi de nc e . L l oy d a l s o a s s e rt e d tha tde put i e s G r i f f i th, T u rn e r , a n dL u c e r o f

a ile dto c o m p lyw ith th e F lo r id ak n o c ka n da n n o u n c e s ta tu te be f or e the ye nt e r e d a nd s e a r c he d L l oy d’ s hom e . S e e F l a . S t a t . § 933. 09. L l oyd fi l ed a m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm entand the defendant s f i l ed m ot i on s t o d i sm i ss and for sum m ary j ud gm ent . T he di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss ed w i tho utprej ud i ce depu t i es T urner and L ucer o, prosec ut or D ar i n, and S ec re t S e rvi c e a ge nt s E l l i otta nd L y nc h be c aus e L l oy d f a i l e d t o s e rve the m w i th the co m p l ai n t . T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i sm i ssed w i th p rej u d i ce th e co m p l ai n t s ag ai n st5

att orney D avi s, prosec ut or B urgess , S heri ff G ei ger, and D eputy C ar d. T he di stri ct c ourtgr a nt e d s um m a ryj udgm e nti n f a vorof the de f e nda nt s on the r e m a i ni ng cl ai m s bas ed on fe dera l l aw and d ec l i ned t o exerci se supp l em ent al j uri sdi ct i on ov er L lo y d ’s c la im b a s e do n s ta te la w . I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r e vi e w adi s m i s s a l f orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m a nd as um m a ryj udgm e nt de novo. H i l l v. W hi t e , 321 F . 3d 1334, 1335 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ; J one s v. C a nnon, 17 4 F . 3d 12 71 , 12 81 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). I I I . DI S CUS S I ON L lo y dp r e s e n ts s ix c h a lle n g e s to th e d e c is io n o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. A ll f a il. W e a ddr e s s e a c h a r gum e nti n turn. A . L lo yd Fa i led to Esta b l ish T

h a t D a vis a n d

Jo h n so n W

ere S ta te A cto rs. T o pr e va i l i n ac i vi l r i ght s c a s e , apl a i nt i f f m us te s t abl i s h tha tape r s on a c t i ng unde rc ol orof

s t a t e l a w de pr i ve d hi m of ar i ghts e c ur e d bythe C ons t i tut i on. 42 U . S . C . § 1983. A pr i va t e pe r s on i s c ons i de r e d as t a t e a c t ori f the s t a t e c oe r c e d or “s ig n if ic a n tlye n c o u r a g e d ” th e p r iv a te p e r s o n to a c t, th e a c tio n w a s tr a d itio n a lly p e r f o rm e db yas ta te o f

f ic ia l, o rth e s ta te w a s ajo in t p a rtic ip a n t in th e a c tio n . R a yb u rn e x r e l. R a yb u rn v . H o g u e , 2 4 1 F .3 d1 3 4 1 , 1 3 4 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . A p r iv a te p a rtym a yb e c o n s id e r e das ta te a c to rif h e c o n s p ir e dw ith s ta te o f f ic ia ls to6

c om m i tthe a l l e ge d c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i on. D e nni s v. S pa rks , 449 U . S . 24, 27–28, 101 S . C t . 183, 186 ( 1980) . T o e s t abl i s h ac ons pi r a c y , the pl a i nt i f f m us tpr e s e nt “e v id e n c e o f

a g r e e m e n t b e tw e e n th e d e f e n d a n ts ” to v io la te h is r ig h ts . R o w e v . F t. L au d e r d a le , 2 7 9 F .3 d1 2 7 1 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( c itin g B a ile yv . B d . o f C o u n ty C om m ’ rs of A l ac hu a C ou nty, 95 6 F . 2d 11 12 , 11 22 (11th C i r. 19 92 )) . T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i dn o terr b y d i sm i ssi n g L l o yd ’ s co m p l ai n tag ai n stD av i s, hi s f orm erdefe nse c ou nsel , and Joh nson , the arre st ee . L l oyd’ s c on cl usory a lle g a tio n s th a t D a v is c o llab o r a te dw ith th e s ta te to e lic it L lo y d ’s p le ao f n o lo co n t en d ere fail ed t o est ab l i sh th atD av i s w as a st at e act o r. S ee H arv ey v . H arv ey, 949 F . 2d 1127, 1133 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . L l oy d a l s o f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha tJ ohns on, th e a rr e s te e , a c te du n d e rc o lo ro f la w . L lo y dn e v e ra lle g e da n yf a c ts th a t w o u ld s upporta n i nf

e r e nc e tha tJ ohns on c ons pi r e d w i th s t a t e a c t or s w he n J ohns on prov i ded a st at em entused t o o bt ai n a se ar ch w arrantfor L l oyd’ s hom e. B . L lo yd W a s N o t D en i ed His C o n st i tu t i o n a l

R i g h t to A ccess th e C o u rt

s. T he F i r s tA m e ndm e ntgr a nt s pr i s one r s al i m i t e d c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtof a c c e s s t o the c ourt s . B ounds v. S m i th, 430 U . S . 817, 821, 97 S . C t . 1491, 1494 ( 1 9 7 7 ) . A p r is o n e rm u s t s h o w a c tu a l in ju ryto e s tab lis h ad e n ia l o f th a t r ig h t. L e w i s v. C a s e y , 518 U . S . 343, 351, 116 S . C t . 2174, 2180 ( 1996) . F ortha tr e a s on, e v id e n c e o f

“m in o ra n ds h o rt- liv e dim p e d im e n ts to a c c e s s ” to e v id e n c e is7

i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s upportac l a i m of de ni a l of

a c c e s s . C ha ndl e rv. B a i r d, 926 F . 2d 10 57 , 10 63 (11th C i r. 19 91 ). T he di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of depu t i es S ea g ra v es an dH o d g es . L lo yd alleg ed th at S ea g ra v es an dH o d g es im p ed ed L lo yd ’s i nve s t i ga t ora nd a tt orne yf r om a c c e s s i ng e vi de nc e a nd c ons ul t i ng w i th hi m , but L l oyd d i d n otsuff

erany a ctual i nj ury. T he att orney c om pl ai ned t o the st at e c ou rt ab o u t th e lim ita tio n s a n db o th th e a tto rn e ya n dth e in v e s tig a to rc o m p le te dth e ir r e s pons i bi l i t i e s . A l though L l oy d r e m a i ne d i n pr i s on f ortw o y e a r s pe ndi ng the r e s ol ut i on of

hi s c r i m i na l c ha r ge s , he r e t a i ne d a c c e s s t o the c ourt s a nd hi s de t e nt i on w a s i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o s a t i s f

ythe r e qui r e m e ntof

a c tua l i nj ury . S e e W i l s on v. B l ankenshi p, 16 3 F . 3d 12 84 , 12 90 –9 1 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ). C . L loy d’s C om

plai nt s A gai ns t Card and G e i

ge rA r e B arr e d B

yR e s J udi c ata. R e s j udi c a t aba r s s e r i a l l a w s ui t s ba s e d on the s a m e f a c t s . R a gs da l e v. R ubbe rm a i d, I nc . , 193 F . 3d 1235, 1238 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . A c om pl a i nti s ba rr e d by earl i erl i t i gat i on w hen there i s afi nal j ud gm enton the m er i t s, re nd er ed by a c ou rt o f c o m p e te n t ju r is d ic tio n , th a t in v o lv e th e s a m e p a rtie s o rin d iv id u a ls in p r iv ity w ith th e m , a n dth e s a m e c au s e o f a c tio n . I d . A c au s e o f

a c tio n is th e s a m e if

it

“ ‘ ar i se s outof the sam e nucl eus of operat i ve fa ct , or i s bas ed up on the sam e f ac tual pr e di c a t e . ’ ” I d. a t1239 ( quot i ng C i t i ba nk, N . A . v. D a t aL e a s e F i n. C orp. , 904 F . 2d8

1498, 1503 ( 11th C i r . 1990) ) . T he l e ga l the or i e s pr e s e nt e d i n the pr e vi ous l i t i ga t i on ne e d notbe the s a m e f orr e s j udi c a t at o appl y . N A A C P v. H unt , 891 F . 2d 15 55 , 15 61 (11th C i r. 19 90 ). T h e d i stri ctco u rtco rrect l y co n cl u d ed th atL l o yd ’ s co m p l ai n t s ag ai n st D e putyC a r d a nd S he r i f f G e i ge rf orf a l s e a rr e s ta nd i m pr i s onm e nt , f abr i c a t i on of e vi de nc e , a nd f

a i l ur e t o s upe rvi s e w e r e pr e c l ude d unde rr e s j udi c a t a . L l oy d f i l e d a pr e vi ous c om pl a i nta ga i ns tC a r d a nd G e i ge rtha tc ha l l e nge d hi s a rr e s ta nd i ncar ce ra t i on , and the di stri ctcourtgrant ed sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of C ar d a n dG e ig e r . A lth o u g h a n ap p e a l f r o m th a t ju d g m e n t is p e n d in g in th is C o u rt, “‘[ t]h e e s tab lis h e dru le in th e f e d e r a l c o u rts is th a t af

in a l ju d g m e n t r e ta in s a ll o f its re s j ud i ca t a c on se qu ence s pendi ng deci si on of the appeal . ’ ” J af fr ee v. W al l ac e, 8 3 7 F. 2 d1 4 6 1 , 1 4 6 6 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 8 8 ) ( q u o t i n g 1 8 Ch a r l e s A l a n W r i g h t , A rth u rR. M i l l e r , & E dw a r d H . C oope r , F e de r a l P r a c t i c e a nd P r oc e dur e § 4433 ( 2d e d. 1981 & S up p. 19 87 )) . D . Col late r al

Es toppe l

B ars L loy d’s C om

plai nt s A bout the Se ar c h W

arr ant an d the A l leged P lan t i ngof C ocai ne. W e r evi ew the preclusi ve ef fe ctof a s t at e c ou rtj ud gm entbase d o n the rul es of c ol l a t e r a l e s t oppe l appl i e d bythe s t a t e . B r ow n v. C i tyof H i a l e a h, 30 F . 3d 1433, 14 37 (11th C i r. 19 94 ) ( ci t i ng U . S . C on st . A rt . IV , § 1 ). In F l ori da, “ col l at er al e s t oppe l appl i e s i f

( 1) a n i de nt i c a l i s s ue , ( 2) ha s be e n f ul l yl i t i ga t e d, ( 3) bythe9

sam e part i es or thei r pri vi es , and (4) a fi nal deci si on has bee n rendered by a c ou rt o f c o m p e te n t ju r is d ic tio n .” Q u in n v . M o n r o e C o u n ty , 3 3 0 F .3 d1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . A lth o u g h c o lla te r a l e s to p p e l is n o t ap p lie din F lo r id aif it w o u ldr e s u lt i n m a ni f e s ti nj us t i c e , no i nj us t i c e r e s ul t s i f the pa rtytha ti s e s t oppe d a l r e a dy“ ha d a f a i ropportuni tyt o c ont e s tthe f a c tua l i s s ue s i n the e a r l i e r. . . a c t i on. ” B a i l e yv. B d. of C ou nty C om m ’ rs , 65 9 S o. 2d 29 5, 30 7 (F l a. D i st . C t . A pp . 19 94 ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtc orr e c t l yc onc l ude d tha tL l oy d w a s e s t oppe d f r om l i t i ga t i ng hi s c om pl a i nt s aboutthe s e a r c h w a rr a nta nd the a l l e ge d pl a nt i ng of c oc a i ne . L l oy d l i t i ga t e d the va l i di tyof the a f f i da vi ta nd s e a r c h w a rr a nta nd e x e c u tio n o f

th e w a rr a n t in p r e - tr ia l m o tio n s a n dis e s to p p e df r o m b r in g in g ac iv il c o m p la in t o n th e s e s a m e g r o u n d s a g a in s t d e p u tie s P a le c e k , W h a le y , V a n T a s s e l, a nd E dw a r ds . S e e B r ow n, 30 F . 3d a t1437 ( “ de f e ns i ve c ol l a t e r a l e s t oppe l i n the c r i mi n a l - t o - c i v i l c o n t e x t ” p r e v e n t s ap l a i n t i f f i n Fl o r i d af

r o m “ r e l i t i g a t i n g th e s a me i ss ue thatw as l i t i gat ed i n p ri or cr i m i nal proceedi ng s” ). L l oyd i s a l so es t op ped f r o m a lle g in g th a t d e p u tie s W h a le y , S e a g r a v e s , a n dH o d g e s p la n te dc o c a in e in h is vehi cl e bec ause L l oyd p l ea ded n o con t es tt o p osse ss i on of cocai ne. S ee S t arr T y m e , I n c . v . C o h e n , 6 5 9 S o . 2 d1 0 6 4 , 1 0 6 8 ( F la . 1 9 9 5 ) ( “[ A ] d e f e n d a n t w h o is adj ud i ca t ed gu i l ty pursuantt o a pl eaof no l o con t endere i s c ol l at er al l y e st op ped f r om s e e ki ng a f

f i rm a t i ve r e l i e f

. . . ba s e d on the s a m e c onduc ttha tga ve r i s e t o the10

p ri o r p ro secu t i o n . ”). T h e reco rd d o es n o tsu p p o rtan arg u m en tfo r m an i fest in ju s tic e b e c au s e L lo y dh a daf a iro p p o rtu n ityto c o n te s t a ll f a c tu a l is s u e s in h is st at e p ro ceed i n g s.

E . N o G e nui ne I

s s ue E x is t s R egardi ng L loy d’s C om plai nt s A bout P la n tin gC o u n te r

fe it Mo n e

ya n d His A rr e s t. L l o y dc h a l l e n g e s th e s u m m a ryj u d g m e n ti n f a v o ro f th e d e p u t i e s o n two gr ounds . F i r s t , L l oy d a r gue s tha tage nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c te xi s t s about w h e th e rW h a le y , S e a g r a v e s , a n dH o d g e s p la n te dc o u n te r f e it m o n e yin h is v e h ic le . S e c ond, L l oy d c ont e nds tha tE dw a r ds , W ha l e y , V a n T a s s e l l , M c D ona l d, a nd G ri ffi th l ack ed reaso n ab l e su sp i ci o n t o st o p h i s v eh i cl e an dp ro b ab l e cau se t o arrest h i m . W e rej ectb o th arg u m en t s. L lo y df a ile dto id e n tif

ye v id e n c e th a t w o u ldc r e a te am a te r ia l f a c tu a l d is p u te abou tthe depu t i es ’ cond uct . L l oyd’ s c on cl usory s t at em ent s thatthe depu t i es p l an t ed th e m o n ey an dfab ri cat ed ev i d en ce ag ai n sth i m w ere i n ad m i ssi b l e b ecau se th e yw e r e n o t b a s e do n p e r s o n a l k n o w le d g e . S e e M a r s h a ll v . C ityo f C ap e C o r a l, F l a. , 79 7 F . 2d 15 55 , 15 59 (11th C i r. 19 86 ) ( “ i nfer ence s bas ed up on spec ul at i on ar e notr e a s onabl e ” ) . L l oy d’ s s pe c ul a t i on a l s o c ontr a di c t s hi s e a r l i e rw r i tt e n s t a t e m e nt t o the po l i ce thatpass engers pl ac ed the coun t er fe i tm on eyi n h i s vehi cl e. L l oy d a l s o f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha tthe tr a f f i c s t op a nd a rr e s tw e r e i nva l i d a nd tha tthe de put i e s f

a l s e l ya rr e s t e d hi m . J ohns on i m pl i c a t e d L l oy d i n ac ount e r f e i t i ng11

op er at i on and, as the depu t i es exec ut ed the se ar ch w arranton L l oyd’ s hou se , they o b serv ed a v eh i cl e th atm at ch ed th e d escri p t i o n o f L l o yd ’ s car ap p ro ach th e h o u se a n dr a c e a w a y . T h e s e c u m u la tiv e f a c ts c r e a te da n “o b

je c tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le s u s p ic io n ” th a t L lo y dw a s e n g a g e din c r im in a l c o n d u c t a n dp r o v id e dth e b a s is to c onduc ta n i nve s t i ga t orys t op. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A c os t a , 363 F . 3d 1141, 1145 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). W hen the depu t i es approached the vehi cl e, they observed c o c a in e a n dc o u n te r f

e it m o n e yin p la in v ie w , w h ic h p r o v id e dp r o b ab le c au s e to a rr e s t L lo y d . S e e U n ite dS ta te s v . O lle t, 8 4 8 F .2 d1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) . B ecau se th e reco rd est ab l i sh es th atth e d ep u t i es w ere en t i t l ed t o j u d g m en tas a m att erof l aw , w e a ff

i rm the sum m ary j ud gm enti n thei r f avor. F. B u r g e s s I s A b s o lu te lyI

m m u n e Fr o m L lo

y d ’s C o m

p la in t.

“ [ P ] r os e c ut or s e nj oyabs ol ut e i m m uni tyf orthe i ni t i a t i on a nd pur s ui tof c r i m i na l pr os e c ut i on” i nc l udi ng “ ‘ a c t s unde rt a ke n 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 . ’ ” J one s , 174 F . 3d a t1281 ( e l l i ps e s i n or i gi na l ) ( quot i ng B u c k le yv . F itz s im m o n s , 5 0 9 U .S . 2 5 9 , 2 7 3 , 1 1 3 S . C t. 2 6 0 6 , 2 6 1 5 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ) . Im m un i ty e xt ends t o the “ appearance i n cou rti n sup po rtof an appl i ca t i on for a s e a r c h w a rr a nta nd the pr e s e nt a t i on of e vi de nc e a ttha the a r i ng. ” B urns v. R e e d, 5 0 0 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 9 2 , 1 1 1 S . C t. 1 9 3 4 , 1 9 4 2 ( 1 9 9 1 ) . A p r o s e c u to ris a ls o ab s o lu te ly im m u n e f

r o m s u it f

o rp r o f f e r in g f ab r ic a te de v id e n c e d u r in g ac r im in a l p r o s e c u tio n .12

R ow e , 279 F . 3d a t1280–81. T he di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y di sm i ss ed L l oyd’ s c l ai m s a gai nstB urgess base d on absol ut e i m m un i ty. L l oyd al l eged thatB urgess as si st ed P al ec ek t o p re pare a f a ls e a f f id a v it to o b ta in th e s e a r c h w a rr a n t f o rL lo y d ’s h o m e , a d v is e dd e p u tie s to de nyL l oy d’ s i nve s t i ga t ora c c e s s t o e vi de nc e , a nd pr os e c ut e d L l oy d us i ng f abr i c a t e d e vi de nc e . B ur ge s s a c t e d w i thi n the s c ope of hi s dut i e s a s pr os e c ut or w h e n a ll o f

th e s e a lle g e da c ts o c c u rr e da n dis im m u n e f r o m d a m a g e s f

o rth o s e a c ts . W e affi rm th e d i sm i ssal o f L l o yd ’ s co m p l ai n tag ai n stB u rg ess. T h e p ar ti al d ism issa l o f a n dp ar ti al su m m ary ju d g m en t ag ain st L lo yd ’s com pl ai ntar e AF F I RME D.