FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT SEPT 24, 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. 08- 10479 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 7 - 0 1 2 0 5 - CV - J - 3 3 - M CR C H E S T E R W E A V E R , S R ., P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, C H E S T E R W E A V E R , J R ., P la in tif f , v ersu s R A Y G E I G E R , S h e r if f , s u e d in h is /h e rin d iv id u a l a n d o f f ic ia l c ap a c itie s , W .J . O 'L E A R Y , s u e d in h is /h e rin d iv id u a l a n d o f f ic ia l c ap a c itie s , C . W A T E , S g t., s u e d in h is /h e rin d iv id u a l a n d o f f ic ia l c ap a c itie s , B .E . T U RN E R , s u e d in h is /h e rin d iv id u a l a n d o f f ic ia l c ap a c itie s , G R A N V I L L E B U R G E S S , s u e d in h is /h e rin d iv id u a l a n d o f f ic ia l c ap a c itie s , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .Weaver ’s son, Chester Weaver, Jr., was also listed as a plaintiff in the c omplaint, but 1 thedis tric t c ourt

dis mis se d his c laim f

or failureto p ay

thefi lingfe eor

se ek in form a pa up eri s status . H edid

no t a pp e al th at judgment. 2

________________________ 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

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 24, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C he s t e rW e a ve r , S r . , aF l or i dapr i s one rs e rvi ng as e nt e nc e f oradrug c o n v i c t i o n a n d p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e , ap p e a l s th e d i s mi s s a l , u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1915( e ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) , of

hi s c om pl a i nt , w hi c h w a s f i l e d pur s ua ntt o 42 U . S . C . §§ 1 9 8 3 a n d 1 9 8 5 . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a t f o llo w , w e A F F I R M th e d is m is s a l. I . B AC KG RO UN D W ea ver w as arre st ed and con vi ct ed of drug po ss es si on i n 2 00 4. T hree ye ar s l a t e r , he f

i l e d s ui tunde r§§ 1983 a nd 1985 s e e ki ng c om pe ns a t orya nd puni t i ve da m a ge s f

r om va r i ous s t a t e a nd l oc a l of f i c i a l s i n c onne c t i on w i th the a rr e s t . T he 1 di stri ctcourtdet erm i ned thatal l of hi s c l ai m s w er e f ri vo l ou s and thu s di sm i ss ed th e m p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i) . W e a v e rm o v e d to ap p e a l th is rul i ng and sou gh tl ea ve t o p roce ed i n form a pauperi s, w hi ch the di stri ctcourt3

deni ed. W e det erm i ned thatthe appeal w as no tfr i vo l ou s and thu s grant ed W ea ver l eav e t o p ro ceed w i th h i s ap p eal i n fo rm a p au p eri s. W e a v e rm a d e an u m b e ro f a lle g a tio n s r e g a r d in g D e te c tiv e W .J . O ’L e a ry , a narc ot i cs offi ce r i n the N as sau C ou nty s heri ff’ s departm ent . A cc ordi ng t o W ea ver, O ’ L earyob t ai ned a se ar ch w arrantbase d o n an aff i davi tthatcont ai ned i ncorrec t a n d f a ls if ie d in f o rm a tio n ab o u t th e lo c a tio n to b e s e a r c h e d a s w e ll a s th e p r o b ab le cause f or such a s earc h. S ee R 1-1 at9. W ea ver a l so al l eged thatO ’ L earyforged th e s ig n a tu r e o f

th e c o u n tyju d g e , R o b e rt W illiam s , o n th e w a rr a n t a n d , in conj un ct i on w i th o ther pol i ce offi ce rs , used thi s f al si fi ed w arrantt o searc h W e a ve r ’ s tr a i l e ra nd i l l e ga l l y c onf i s c a t e hi s pr ope rtyw i thoutdue pr oc e s s . S e e i d. a t9- 10. A ddi t i ona l l y , W e a ve ra s s e rt e d tha the w a s s ubj e c t e d t o m a l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on by O ’ L e a ry . S e e i d. a t16- 17. W ea ver a l so m ade a dd i t i on al cl ai m s a gai nstfour other off i ci al s – R ay G e ig e r , th e N a s s au C o u n tyS h e r if f ; R o b e rt W illia m s a n d R o b e rt F o s te r , b o th C ircu itJu d g es in N as sa u C o u n ty; an d G ra n v il le B u rg es s, an A ss istan t S tate’s A tt orney f

or N as sau C ou nty – as w el l as agai nstN as sau C ou nty i t se l f. H e a l l eged thatS heri ff

G ei ger had es t abl i shed a patt ern o r pra ct i ce of fa l se arre st s, i l l egal se ar ches and o ther f

orm s of c orruptbehavi or w i thi n the po l i ce departm entand that N a s s au C ounty t ol e r a t e d thi s be ha vi orbyf a i l i ng t o di s c i pl i ne hi m . S e e i d. a t13-4

16 , 21 -23. A dd i t i on al l y, he as se rt ed thatW i l l i am s, F ost er , and B urgess conspi re d t o vi ol a t e hi s r i ght s by t a c i t l y a c c e pt i ng thi s pa tt e rn of c orrupt i on a nd appr ovi ng the f a l s i f i e d s e a r c h w a rr a nta nd a f f i da vi t . S e e i d. a t17- 21. W e a ve ra l s o s ought supp l em ent al j uri sdi ct i on for ast at e l aw negl i gence cl ai m agai nstG ei ger and other sher i ff’ s departm entoffi ce rs re gardi ng the fa l se arre stand p rose cut i on as w el l as th e d ep riv atio n o f p ro p er ty w ith o u t du e p ro ce ss . S ee id . at 2 3 -2 5 . W ea v er ’s c om pl a i ntc oul d be r e a d a s c l a i m i ng i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l , though he never i dent i fi ed thatas a s epar at e or di st i ncti ss ue. I I . DI S CUS S I ON W e r e vi e w a§ 1915( e ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) di s m i s s a l ba s e d on f r i vol i tyf orabus e of di s c r e t i on. S e e N api e rv. P r e s l i c ka , 314 F . 3d 528, 531 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . “ F or p u rp o s e s o f

§ 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i) , a n a c tio n is f r iv o lo u s if

it is w ith o u t a r g u ab le m e r it ei th er i n l aw o r fact . ” Id . (ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). T h e factu al al l eg at i o n s setfo rth m u st b e s u f f ic ie n t to “r a is e ar ig h t to r e lie f ab o v e th e s p e c u la tiv e le v e l.” B e ll A tla n tic C o rp . v . T w o m b ly , __U .S . __ , 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 9 5 5 , 1 9 6 5 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . S in c e W e a v e ris fi l i n g p ro se , w e a na l y z e hi s pl e a di ngs unde ral i be r a l s t a nda r d. S e e H ughe s v. L ott , 35 0 F . 3d 11 57 , 11 60 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). B a s e d on W e a ve r ’ s br i e f on appe a l , anum be rof the c l a i m s i n the c om pl a i nt have been w ai ved. H i s bri ef i ncl ud es no di sc ussi on of the st at e l aw negl i gence5

c l a i m , N a s s au C ounty ’ s appr ova l of the c orruptpol i c e pr a c t i c e s , orof a ny co n sp i racy cl ai m u n d er § 1 9 8 5 . W e d eem an y “ i ssu es n o tb ri efed o n ap p eal b y a pro s e litig a n t [ to b e ] ab a n d o n e d .” T im s o n v . S a m p s o n , 5 1 8 F .3 d 8 7 0 , 8 7 4 ( 1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) ( p ercu riam ). A d d it io n ally, W ea v ero n ly m en ti o n s S h er iff G eig er ’s approv al of po l i ce m al fe as ance i n the cont extof desc ri bi ng the al l eged conspi ra cy by B ur ge s s a nd the tw o j udge s . S uc h abr i e f m e nt i on, abs e nta nys ubs t a nt i ve a r g u m e n t o n th e m e r its , a m o u n ts to aw a iv e ro f th a t c la im . S e e F a rr o w v . W e s t, 32 0 F . 3d 12 35 , 12 42 n. 10 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). A . C l ai m s A g ai n stD et ect i v e O ’ L eary an d O th er P o l i ce O ffi cers S e c t i on 1983 pe rm i t s apl a i nt i f f t o obt a i n c i vi l da m a ge s f r om a nype r s on w ho depri ves hi m of const i tut i on al ri gh t s, so l on g as thatpers on i s a ct i ng un der c ol orof s t a t e l a w . S e e 42 U . S . C . § 1983. H ow e ve r , thi s r e l i e f i s unava i l abl e f

or de pr i va t i ons of

pr ope rty w i thoutdue pr oc e s s “ i f am e a ni ngf

ul pos t de pr i va t i on r e m e d y f o rth e lo s s is a v a ilab le .” H u d s o n v . P a lm e r , 4 6 8 U .S . 5 1 7 , 5 3 3 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 3194, 3204 ( 1984) . I n a ddi t i on, § 1983 pl a i nt i f f s m a yonl y“ r e c ove rda m a ge s f or a l l e ge dl y unc ons t i tut i ona l c onvi c t i on ori m pr i s onm e nt , orf orothe rha rm c aus e d by ac t i on s w ho se un l aw ful ness w ou l d render a c on vi ct i on or se nt ence i nv al i d” i f they c a n d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e c o n v ic tio n o rs e n te n c e h a s s o m e h o w b e e n in v a lid a te d . H ec k v . H um ph re y, 51 2 U . S . 47 7, 48 6-87 , 11 4 S . C t . 23 64 , 23 72 -73 (19 94 ).6

T he di stri ctcourtre

j ec t ed al l of W ea ver’ s c l ai m s w i th res pectt o the al l eged i l l e ga l s e a r c h a nd s e i z ur e by O ’ L e a rya nd the othe rpol i c e of f i c e r s . B a s e d on a l i be r a l r e a di ng of

the c om pl a i nt , W e a ve r ’ s c l a i m appe a r s t o i nvol ve thr e e di f f e r e nt pot e nt i a l vi ol a t i ons – O ’ L e a ry ’ s a l l e ge d f or gi ng of J udge W i l l i a m s ’ s s i gna tur e , the s e a r c h w a rr a nt ’ s r e l i a nc e on f a l s e s t a t e m e nt s byc onf

i de nt i a l i nf

orm a nt s , a nd the d e p r iv a tio n o f

p r o p e rtyw ith o u t d u e p r o c e s s a s ar e s u lt o f th e u s e o f

th is a lle g e d ly i nv al i d w arrant . T he courtdet erm i ned thatthe l as tof these cl ai m s w as fore cl osed s in c e F lo r id as ta te la w p r o v id e d a n a d e qu a te a lte rn a te r e m e d y . S e e R 1 - 6 a t 8 - 9 . F l or i daha s e xpr e s s l y w a i ve d s t a t e s ove r e i gn i m m uni tyf ort orts ui t s i nvol vi ng, i nt e ra l i a , l os s of

pr ope rty c aus e d by s t a t e e m pl oy e e s ora ge nt s a c t i ng w i thi n the s c ope of the i re m pl oy m e nt . S e e F l a . S t a t . 768. 28( 1) ( 2008) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtthus di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de t e rm i ni ng tha tthi s r e l i e f qua l i f i e s a s the type of

“ m e a ni ngf

ul r e m e dy ” r e qui r e d unde rH uds on. S e e H uds on, 468 U . S . a t533, 104 S . C t . a t3204. T h e r a tio n a le f

o rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s r e

je c tio n o f

th e o th e rtw o a lle g a tio n s is le s s c le a r lya rtic u la te d , b u t th e d e c is io n d id n o t c o n s titu te a n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . T he courtdi sc usse d “ negl i gentproces si ng of the se ar ch w arrant , ” w hi ch i tdeem ed no tt o i nv ol ve the i nfri ng em entof any part i cul arfe dera l const i tut i on al or st atut ory ri gh t , thu s m aki ng § 1 98 3 rel i ef un avai l abl e. R 1-6 at9. A dd i t i on al l y, the court7

n o te d th a t s o m e o f

W e a v e r ’s c la im s a m o u n te d to c h a lle n g e s to th e le g a lityo f h is c onvi c t i on, w hi c h ha d t o be pur s ue d thr ough habe a s r e vi e w . S e e i d. a t5. T he

“ ne gl i ge ntpr oc e s s i ng” r a t i ona l e w oul d s e e m t o e nc om pa s s the f or ge rya l l e ga t i on, w hi ch W ea ver des cr i bes a s avi ol at i on of st at e, no tfe dera l , l aw . S i nce W ea ver fai l s t o asserta fed eral ri g h t , th e d i stri ctco u rtw as j u st i fi ed i n rej ect i n g th e fo rg eryb a s e d c l a i m. A d d itio n a lly , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is c u s s io n o f im p e rm is s ib le c h a lle n g e s to the l egal i ty of W ea ver’ s c on vi ct i on suff i ci ent l y a dd re ss es the cl ai m thatthe se ar ch w a rr a ntha d a n i nva l i d ba s i s . W e ha ve pr e vi ous l yhe l d tha ts uc h c l a i m s c a n be b r o u g h t e v e n w ith o u t p r o o f th a t th e u n d e r ly in g c o n v ic tio n h a s b e e n c a lle d in to qu es t i on . S ee H ug hes, 35 0 F . 3d at11 60 (“ B ec ause an i l l egal se ar ch or arre stm ay b e f o llo w e d b y av a lidc o n v ic tio n , . . . as u c c e s s f u l § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n f

o rF o u rth A m e n d m e n t s e a r c h a n d s e iz u r e v io la tio n s d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r ilyim p lyth e in v a lid ity of a c on vi ct i on . A s are sul t , H ec k d oes notgeneral l y barsuch cl ai m s. ”) . H ow ever , w e h a v e a ls o d e te rm in e d th a t H e c kw o u ld s till p r e c lu d e th o s e c la im s th a t “if succ es sf ul , w ou l d n ec es sari l y i m pl y the i nv al i di ty of the conv i ct i on because they w oul d ne ga t e a n e l e m e ntof the of f e ns e . ” I d. a t1160 n. 2. I n or de rt o de t e rm i ne w hether s uch a negat i on w ou l d o cc ur, w e m ustl oo k atbo th “ the cl ai m s r ai se d un der § 19 83 " and “ the spec i fi c off ense s f or w hi ch the § 1 98 3 cl ai m antw as8

c onvi c t e d. ” I d. W e a ve r ’ s c onvi c t i on f

orpos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e w a s pr e m i s e d on the m ethado ne un covered duri ng the se ar ch perm i tt ed by the al l egedl y i m prop er w a rr a nt . A c c or di ngl y , i f W e a ve rw a s s uc c e s s f

ul i n hi s c l a i m , i tw oul d c a s tdoubt o n th e v a lid ityo f

a n e s s e n tia l e le m e n t o f th e o f f e n s e f o rw h ic h h e w a s f

o u n d g u ilty . H i s a l l e ga t i on of

a n i nva l i d ba s i s f

orthe s e ar c h w a rr a ntthus a m ount s t o the ki nd of a tta c ko n th e f

a c tu a l b a s is f

o rac o n v ic tio n th a t w e h a v e d e e m e d im p e rm is s ib le unde rH e c k. S e e B a xt e rv. C r a w f or d, 233 F e d. A ppx. 912, 916 ( 11th C i r . 2007) (percuri am ) ( barr i ng a B i vens cl ai m al l egi ng i l l egal se ar ch and sei zure for an i ndi vi dua l c onvi c t e d of

c oc a i ne di s tr i but i on a nd pos s e s s i on, s i nc e s uc h a n a c t i on w ou l d att ac k the fa ctual basi s f or hi s c on vi ct i on ). G i ven thi s pot ent i al ou t com e, th e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tab u se i t s d i scret i o n i n d i sm i ssi n g th e i l l eg al search cl ai m s. W e a v e ra ls o s e e m s to b e ap p e a lin g th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f h is m al i ci ou s prose cut i on cl ai m agai nstO ’ L earyand o ther off i ce rs . T he courtre

j ec t ed s uc h ac l a i m ba s e d on H e c k, not i ng tha tW e a ve rpr e s e nt e d no e vi de nc e s how i ng tha thi s c onvi c t i on ha d be e n c a l l e d i nt o que s t i on, thus m a ki ng s uc h am ot i on p r e m a tu r e . S e e R 1 - 6 a t 7 - 8 . S in c e th is d e te rm in a tio n a c c o r d s w ith th e f a c ts di s c us s e d i n W e a ve r ’ s c om pl a i nt , the c ourtw a s w i thi n i t s di s c r e t i on i n di s m i s s i ng th i s c l a i m.9

B . C l ai m s A gai nstA S A B urgess , Judg e W i l l i am s, and Jud ge F ost er T h e d istrict co u rt re

jected th e c o n sp irac y c laim s a g ain st A ss istan t S tate’s A tto rn e y B u r g e s s a n d J u d g e s W illia m s a n d F o s te r , f in d in g th e m to b e b o th

“ f a nt a s t i c a nd de l us i ona l ” a nd othe rw i s e pr e c l ude d byabs ol ut e pr os e c ut or i a l a nd j ud i ci al i m m un i ty. S ee R 1-6 at5, 6-7. A s an i ni t i al m att er , W ea ver’ s c on spi ra cy a lle g a tio n s ap p e a rto b e c o m p le te lyb a s e le s s , s in c e h e p r e s e n ts n o e v id e n c e to j us t i f y hi s c l a i m s . S e e D e nt on v. H e rna nde z , 504 U . S . 25, 32, 112 S . C t . 1728, 1 7 3 3 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ( d e c l a r i n g th a td i s tr i c tc o u rt s c a n d i s mi s s i n f o rmap au p e r i s c l a i ms

“ w ho se fa ctual cont ent i on s are cl earl y bas el es s” ). F urthe rm or e , the di s tr i c tc ourtw a s j us t i f i e d i n f i ndi ng tha tboth j udge s a nd th e A s s is ta n t S ta te ’s A tto rn e y w e r e im m u n e f r o m s u it. “J u d g e s a r e e n title d to abs ol ut e j udi c i a l i m m uni ty f r om da m a ge s f

orthos e a c t s t a ke n w hi l e the ya r e a c t i ng i n thei r j ud i ci al capaci ty unl es s they a ct ed i n the cl ear absence of al l j uri sdi ct i on . ” B ol i n v. S t ory , 225 F . 3d 1234, 1239 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed). “ T hi s i m m un i ty app l i es even w hen the j ud ge' s a ct s are i n err or, m al i ci ou s, or w er e i n exces s of hi s or herj uri sdi ct i on . ” I d. S i m i l ar l y, “ [a ] p r o s e c u to ris e n title d to ab s o lu te im m u n ityf r o m s u it 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 13 50 , 13 53 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). In thi s c as e, the j ud ges’ ac t i on s c on st i tut ed10

norm a l j udi c i a l f

unc t i ons , a nd B ur ge s s ’ s a c t i ons w e r e a l l pe r f orm e d i n the i ni t i at i on and p ursui tof cr i m i nal prosec ut i on agai nstW ea ver. S i nce W ea ver of f e r e d no f a c t s orl a w t o s upporthi s a l l e ga t i ons tha tthe yw e r e a l l a c t i ng out s i de th e s c o p e o f

th e iro f f ic e in th e ird e a lin g s w ith h im , th e ya r e a ll e n title d to ab s o lu te i m m u n i ty. T h e d i stri ctco u rtw as th u s j u st i fi ed i n d i sm i ssi n g th o se cl ai m s. I I I . CONCL US I ON W e a v e rap p e a l s th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s d i s mi s s a l , u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i) , o f

h is § 1 9 8 3 s u it a lle g in g c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n s in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is a rr e s t a n d s u b s e q u e n t c o n v ic tio n o n d ru g p o s s e s s io n c h a r g e s . B a s e d o n th e f

a c ts a n d la w d is c u s s e d in W e a v e r ’s c o m p la in a n d b r ie f o n ap p e a l, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d is m is s in g th e s u it a s f r iv o lo u s . A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f

f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f W e a v e r ’s c o m p la in t. A F F I R M E D .