FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JULY 23, 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- 12840 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 6 0 1 2 8 - C V- UU B C H A R L E S W E S L E Y O ’B E R R Y , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S T A T E A T T O RN E Y S O F F I C E , B R O W A R D C O U N T Y , F T . L A U D E R D A L E P O L I C E D E P T ., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ N o. 06- 13562 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 6 0 2 6 8 - C V - K MM C H A R L E S W E S L E Y O ’B E R R Y , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C I T Y O F F O R T L A U D E R D A L E , T H E R I S K M A N A G E M E N T D I V I S I O N , C I T Y C O U N C I L ,2

C I T Y C I V I L S E R V I C E B O A R D , O Z Z I E D A V E N P O R T , J E R R Y M E L T Z E R , B I L L C A P K O , E D W A R D G . S T E P H E N S , R O N A L D H A N K S , i n thei r O f f ic ia l a n d I n 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 s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 23, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C harl es W es l eyO ’ B erry , a F l ori da pri soner w ho i s s ervi ng a 150 -y ea r se nt ence af

t erbei ng conv i ct ed of tw o cou nt s of r ape i n 1 96 9, appeal s the di stri ct c our t ’ s di s m i s s a l s –f

orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m upon w hi c h r e l i e f c oul d be grant ed–o f hi s tw o, se para t el y f i l ed ci vi l ri gh t s c om pl ai nt s, w hi ch w e c on sol i dat ed o n ap p e a l. U p o n r e v ie w , w e A F F I R M . I . B AC KG RO UN D I n hi s f i r s tc om pl a i nt , N o. 06- 60128- U U B ( S . D . F l a . , J a n. 30, 2006) ( h e r e in a f te r“C o m p la in t # 1 ” ) , O ’B e rry c la im e d th a t th e O f f ic e o f th e S ta te A tt orne y i n B r ow a r d C ounty , F l or i da , a nd the F t . L aude r da l e P ol i c e D e pa r tm e nt28 U.S.C. § 1915A require s that a cour t review“a c omplaint in a civil action in which a 1 prisoner se eks re dress from a g overnmental entity or off icer ,” and states that upon such review, the cour t shall identify

the cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, if the c ourt finds that the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to st ate a claim upon which relief ma y be grante d.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (a), (b). 3 conspi re d t o v i ol at e hi s c i vi l ri gh t s by usi ng fa l se evi dence t o i nd i ctand con vi ct hi m i n 1 96 9 for a r ape thathe di d n otcom m i t . O ’ B erryal l eged thatthi s c on du ct const i tut ed a c ri m i nal ac t ; he i nv ok ed 18 U . S . C . §§ 24 1 and 24 2 as the st atut ory ba s i s f orhi s c om pl a i nt . O ’ B e rry m ove d t o a m e nd hi s c om pl a i ntt o a l l e ge a ddi t i ona l f

a c t s , butthe m a gi s tr a t e j udge de c l i ne d t o pe rm i ta n a m e ndm e nt . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge c ons true d O ’ B e rry ’ s c om pl a i nta s be i ng ac l a i m br oughtunde r42 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 ( “ § 1 9 8 3 ” ) r a th e rth a n 1 8 U .S .C . § § 2 4 1 a n d 2 4 2 . T h e m a g is tr a te j u d g e th en reco m m en d ed a su a sp o n t e d i sm i ssal o f O ’ B erry’ s co m p l ai n t , b ecau se th e c o m p lain t w as ti m e- b ar re d . T h e d istrict co u rt th en d ism isse d O ’B er ry ’s c om pl a i nt , pur s ua ntt o i t s a uthor i ty unde r28 U . S . C . § 1915A , ba s e d on the 1 m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s f

i nd i ng thatthe com pl ai ntw as barr ed by F l ori da’ s f ou r- ye ar st atut e of l i m i t at i on s f

or cl ai m s of f

al se arre stor m al i ci ou s prose cut i on . T he court c o n c lu d e d th a t a ll o th e rp e n d in g m o tio n s s h o u ld b e d is m is s e d a s m o o t. O ’ B e rry ’ s s e c ond c om pl a i nt , N o. 06- 60268- K M M ( S . D . F l a . , F e b. 16, 2006) ( h e r e in a f te r“C o m p la in t # 2 ” ) w a s f ile d ap p r o x im a te ly am o n th a f te rC o m p la in t # 1 . T hi s t i m e O ’ B e rry l odge d c l a i m s a ga i ns ta ga i ns tthe C i ty of F t . L aude r da l e ; the4

R i s k M a na ge m e ntD i vi s i on; the C i ty C ounc i l ; the C i ty C i vi l S e rvi c e B oa r d; D et ect i v es O zzi e D av en p o rt , Jerry M el t zer, an d B i l l C ap k o ; O ffi cer R o n al d H an k s; a nd A s s i s t a ntS t a t e A tt orne y E dw a r d S t e phe ns . O ’ B e rry a ga i n c l a i m e d tha tthe d e f e n d a n ts h a d c o n s p ir e d to v io la te h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts in c o n v ic tin g h im in 19 69 , i n v i ol at i on of 42 U . S . C . §§ 19 83 , 19 85 (3), and 1 98 6. C om pl ai nt#2 w as b a s e d o n th e s a m e f

a c ts th a t O ’B e rry h a d a lle g e d in C o m p la in t # 1 . T h e m a g is tr a te j udge r e c om m e nde d as uas pont e di s m i s s a l of C om pl a i nt#2. T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge f ir s t c o n c lu d e d th a t th e e a r lie rd is m is s a l o f C o m p la in t # 1 s h o u ld h a v e ar e s ju d ic a ta e f f e c t o n C o m p la in t # 2 , a s O ’B e rry ’s n e w c o m p la in t w a s “s e e k [ in g ] to r e litig a te th e id e n tic a l c la im s th a t w e r e a lr e a d y litig a te d in th is C o u r t.” R 1 - 7 a t 6 . F u r th e rm o r e , e v e n if

r e s ju d ic a taw e r e n o t to ap p ly C o m p la in t # 2 , th e m a g is tr a te j udge c onc l ude d tha tC om pl a i nt#2 w a s w e l l be y ond the f our - y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons appl i c abl e t o c l a i m s of f a l s e a rr e s t . T he di s tr i c tc our ta gr e e d a nd d i s m i s s e d C o m p l a i n t# 2 , p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C . § 1 9 1 5 A. O ’ B e rry ha s s e pa r a t e l y appe a l e d the c our t ’ s di s m i s s a l s , f i l i ng one appe a l f

or C o m p l a i n t# 1 a n d as e p a r a t e o n e f o rC o m p l a i n t# 2 . F o re a s e o f r e f e r e n c e , we c o n s o lid a te d th e tw o c a s e s . W e n o w d is c u s s e a c h in tu rn . I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . A r gum e nt s O n A ppe a l C onc e rni ng C om pl a i nt#15

W e f ir s t a d d r e s s O ’B e rry ’s ap p e a l o f th e d is m is s a l o f

C o m p la in t # 1 . W e r e vi e w de novo 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 unde r§ 1915A . L e a l v. G e o r g iaD e p ’t o f

C o rr ., 2 5 4 F .3 d 1 2 7 6 , 1 2 7 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . A c iv il com pl ai ntfi l ed by a pri soner s ee ki ng re dres s f rom an em pl oyee or offi ce r of a gove rnm e nt a l e nt i ty i s r e vi e w e d unde r§ 1915A , a nd m a y be di s m i s s e d i f the com pl ai nt“ i s f

ri vo l ou s, m al i ci ou s, or fa i l s t o st at e acl ai m up on w hi ch re l i ef m ay b e g ran t ed . ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 A (a), (b ). “ [P ] ro se p l ead i n g s are h el d t o a l ess s tr i nge nts t a nda r d tha n pl e a di ngs dr a f t e d by a tt orne y s a nd w i l l , the r e f or e , be lib e r a lly c o n s tru e d .” T a n n e n b au m v . U n ite d S ta te s , 1 4 8 F .3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 3 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 98 ) ( per c uri am ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). H ow ever , “ thi s l eni encydo es no tgi ve a co u rtl i cen se t o serv e as d e fact o co u n sel fo r a p arty, o r t o rew ri t e an o th erw i se de f i c i e ntpl e a di ng i n or de rt o s us t a i n a n a c t i on. ” G J R I nv. , I nc . v. C ounty of E s c a m bi a , F l a . , 132 F . 3d 1359, 1369 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( i nt e rna l c i t a t i ons a nd q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . O ’ B erry ’ s f

i rs tar gu m entw i th res pectt o C om pl ai nt#1 i s thatthe di stri ct courti m prop er l y c on strued thatcom pl ai ntas on e bas ed on § 1 98 3, ra ther than an a c t i on ba s e d on 18 U . S . C . §§ 241 a nd 242. T he di s tr i c tc our ta c c e pt e d the m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s f

i nd i ng thatO ’ B errycoul d n otbri ng an i nd i vi du al ac t i on un der 1 8 U .S .C . § § 2 4 1 a n d 2 4 2 , a s it w a s ac r im in a l s ta tu te a n d th e p o w e rto p r o s e c u teIt should be noted that O’B err y ’s main argument as to the unre asonableness of the 2 district court’s re -cha

rac terizing his claim in Complaint #1 as a § 1983 ac tion is that 18 U.S.C. § 242 imposes a “willfulness”requirement on the offic er’ s conduct, wherea s § 1983 does not impose any

such mens re a. Heclaims that the notion of willfulness is “incognizable” to the statutory schemeset forth in § 1983. B r. of Appe llant, 06-12840, at 14. I f any thing, this fact would seem to inure to O’ Berry ’s bene fit, since the thre shold for establishinga constitutional v i o l at i o nun d er

§ 1 9 8 3 wo ul d

b e s u b s t anti al ly

l o we r th anth e thre s h o l d

fo r e s t ab l i s h i n g a criminal constitutional violation under 18 U.S.C. § 242. 6 cr i m i nal ca se s i s ves t ed excl usi vel y i n the E xecut i ve B ra nch. T hu s the court c o n s tru e d O ’B e rry ’s a c tio n in C o m p la in t # 1 a s b e in g c iv il in n a tu r e , a n d tr e a te d it a s be i ng br oughtunde r§ 1983. O ’ B e rry c ont e nds tha tthi s r e - c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on of hi s a ct i on w as i n err or. 2 U n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 4 1 , i n d i v i d u al s w h o co n sp i re t o “ i n j u re, o p p ress, thr e a t e n, ori nt i m i da t e ” a nothe rpe r s on’ s “ f r e e e xe r c i s e ore nj oy m e ntof a ny r i ght orpr i vi l e ge s e c ur e d t o hi m by the C ons t i tut i on” s ha l l be f i ne d, ori m pr i s one d, or bo th. In addi t i on , un der 18 U . S . C . § 2 42 , any i nd i vi du al , w ho , w hi l e a ct i ng un der c ol orof a ny l a w , w i l l f

ul l y de pr i ve s ape r s on of hi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s ba s e d upon th a t p e r s o n ’s r a c e s h a ll b e f in e d , o rim p r is o n e d , o rb o th . T h e s ta tu te ’s c iv il c o u n t e rp a r t , § 1 9 8 3 , p r o v i d e s th a ta n y i n d i v i d u a l , wh o , u n d e rth e c o l o ro f l a w, d e p r iv e s ap e r s o n o f

c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts o rp r iv ile g e s , “s h a ll b e liab le to th e p a r ty in ju r e d in a n a c tio n a t la w , s u it in e q u ity , o ro th e rp r o p e rp r o c e e d in g f o rr e d r e s s .” 42 U . S . C . § 1983. T hus , § 1983 “ pr ovi de s f orpr i va t e r e l i e f

i n c i vi l a c t i ons f

r om the de pr i va t i on of

r i ght s s e c ur e d by the C ons t i tut i on a nd i t s l a w s , ” w he r e a s §§ 2417

and 2 42 “ prov i de for c ri m i nal penal t i es for the depri vat i on of such ri gh t s. ” I n re E s t e l l e , 516 F . 2d 480, 486 ( 5th C i r . 1975) ; s e e a l s o L e w i s v. B r aut i ga m , 227 F . 2d 12 4, 12 8 (5th C i r. 19 55 ) ( char ac t er i zi ng 18 U . S . C . § 2 42 as “ the cr i m i nal c o u n te rp a r t o f

§ 1 9 8 3 ” ) . H e r e , O ’B e rry a tte m p te d to f ile h is c o m p la in t p u r s u a n t to § § 2 4 1 a n d 2 4 2 . H o w e v e r , a s th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s u rm is e d , O ’B e rry c o u ld notf or c e the U . S . A tt orne y G e ne r a l t o br i ng ac r i m i na l pr os e c ut i on a ga i ns tthe defe nd ant s. M oreover, un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5A , the courtw as ob l i gat ed, as part of i t s s c r e e ni ng pr ot oc ol , t o s e e k outa nd i de nt i f y a ny a nd a l l c ogni z abl e c l a i m s of the pl a i nt i f

f . T he c our t ’ s de c i s i on t o c ons true O ’ B e rry ’ s c l a i m a s a§ 1983 a c t i on w a s a n a tt e m ptt o a dhe r e t o thi s s t a tut ory obl i ga t i on. T hus , w e c onc l ude tha tthe m ag istrate ju d g e a n d th e d istrict co u rt ac tedp ro p er ly in co n stru in g O ’B er ry ’s c o mp l a i n ta s b e i n g c i v i l i n n a tu r e , a n d i n th e r e b y tr e a t i n g h i s c l a i m– f o r§ 2 8 U . S. C. 19 15 A sc re eni ng pu rposes – as s ou nd i ng i n § 19 83 ra ther than i t s c ri m i nal c o u n te rp a r t. O ’ B e rry ne xta r gue s on appe a l tha the s houl d ha ve be e n pe rm i tt e d t o a m e nd C om pl a i nt#1, s o tha the c oul d ha ve i nc l ude d f a c t s de m ons tr a t i ng tha tthe s t a tut e of li m it atio n s s h o u ldb e s u b ject to eq u it ab le to ll in g . O ’B er ry ar g u es th at h e d id n ’t le a rn o f h is c o n s titu tio n a l in

ju ry u n til 2 0 0 4

– a n d th a t, h a d h e b e e n p e rm itte d to8

a m e nd hi s c om pl a i ntt o a ddr e s s thi s f a c t , the s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons ba rw oul d ha ve been subj ec tt o equ i t abl e t ol l i ng i n h i s c as e. W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of am ot i on t o a m e nd ac om pl a i ntf ora n abus e of d is c r e tio n . S te g e rv . G e n . E le c . C o ., 3 1 8 F .3 d 1 0 6 6 , 1 0 8 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . A d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is c r e tio n to d is m is s ac o m p la in t w ith o u t g r a n tin g le a v e to a m e n d is r e s tr i c t e d by F e d. R . C i v. P . 15( a ) , w hi c h di r e c t s tha tl e a ve t o a m e nd “ s ha l l be fr ee l y gi ven w hen j ust i ce so re qu i re s. ” T he di stri ctcourt , ho w ever , do es no tneed t o “ a l l ow a n a m e ndm e nt. . . w he r e a m e ndm e ntw oul d be f ut i l e . ” B ry a ntv. D upr e e , 252 F . 3d 1161, 1163 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( i nt e rna l c i t a t i ons a nd qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). T he un derl yi ng l egal concl usi on of w hether apart i cul ar a m e ndm e ntt o ac om pl a i nti s f ut i l e i s r e vi e w e d de novo. H a rr i s v. I va x C orp. , 182 F .3 d 7 9 9 , 8 0 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f le a v e to a m e nd i s j us t i f

i e d on f ut i l i ty gr ounds “ w he n the c om pl a i nta s a m e nde d [ w oul d] s t i l l [ be ] s ubj e c tt o di s m i s s a l . ” H a l l v. U ni t e d I ns . C o. of A m . , 367 F . 3d 1255, 1 2 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . In F l ori da, § 1 98 3 cl ai m s a re subj ec tt o a four ye arst atut e of l i m i t at i on s. S ee B ur t on v. C i ty of

B e l l e G l a de , 178 F . 3d 1175, 1188 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed). “ F eder al l aw det erm i nes w hen a feder al ci vi l ri gh t s c l ai m ac crues. ” R oz a rv. M ul l i s , 85 F . 3d 556, 561 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . “ T he9

ge ne r a l f e de r a l rul e i s tha tthe s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons doe s notbe gi n t o run unt i l the f a c t s w hi c h w oul d s uppor tac aus e of a c t i on a r e appa r e ntors houl d be appa r e ntt o a pers on w i th a re as on abl y prudentre gard for hi s r i gh t s. ” I d. at56 1-62 (i nt ernal c i t a t i ons a nd quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . “ P l a i nt i f f s m us tknow orha ve r e a s on t o know tha tthe y w e r e i nj ur e d, a nd m us tbe a w a r e ors houl d be a w a r e of w ho i nf l i c t e d the in ju ry .” I d . a t 5 6 2 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . Th i s c a s e , h o w e v e r , i s g o v e rn e d b y H e c kv . H u mp h r e y , 5 1 2 U . S. 4 7 7 , 1 1 4 S. C t. 2 3 4 6 ( 1 9 9 4 ) , w h e r e th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld : [ I ]n o r d e rto r e c o v e r[ m o n e ta ry ] d a m a g e s f o ra lle g e d ly un const i tut i on al conv i ct i on or i m pri sonm ent , or for other harm caused 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, a § 19 83 pl ai nt i ff m ustprov e thatthe conv i ct i on or se nt ence ha s be e n r e ve r s e d on di r e c tappe a l . . . . A c l a i m of da m a ge s be a r i ng th atrel at i o n sh i p t o a co n v i ct i o n o r sen t en ce th ath as not b een so i nva l i da t e d i s notc ogni z abl e unde r§ 1983. I d. a t486- 87, 114 S . C t . a t2372. T he di s tr i c tc our tm us t , the r e f or e , de t e rm i ne “w h e th e raju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f th e p la in tif

f w o u ld n e c e s s a r ily im p ly th e in v a lid ity of hi s c onvi c t i on ors e nt e nc e ; i f i tw oul d, the c om pl a i ntm us tbe di s m i s s e d . . . ” I d. a t 4 8 7 , 1 1 4 S . C t. a t 2 3 7 2 . W e d isce rn n o er ro r in th e d istrict co u rt’s ac ti o n . F irst, b ec au se O ’B er ry ’s c l a i m w a s ba rr e d by H e c k, the c our t ’ s gr a nt i ng l e a ve t o a m e nd hi s c om pl a i nt w ou l d h ave been “ fut i l e, ” bec ause , un der the ho l di ng of H ec k, “ the com pl ai ntasO’B err y also argues on appe al that the district cour t improperly

ref used to ref

und the 3 alleg edly excessive filingfee s that he paid when he filed Complaint #1. The fe e filingprovision of the Prisoner Litigation Refor m Act re quires that a prisoner bring ing a pro se c ivil action “pay thefull amou

nt o f a fi lingfe e ,”wh e ther o r not h eproc e e dsin f or ma pa up eri s, but prov ide s th at a court may not collect a f

illing fe e in excess of “the amount of fe es per mitted by statute for the commencement of a c ivil action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) , (3). Here, how ever , O’B err y has pre sente d n o evidenc ethat hepaid exce ssivefi lingfe e s tothedis tric t c ourt . Thu s, thec ourt did 10 a m e nde d [ w oul d] s t i l l be s ubj e c tt o di s m i s s a l . ” H a l l , 367 F . 3d a t1263; s e e i d. ( f i ndi ng a n a m e ndm e ntt o ac om pl a i ntt o be f ut i l e , be c aus e the a m e nde d c om pl a i nt w ou l d st i l l cont ai n “ no po t ent i al l y m er i t ori ou s c l ai m s” ). In addi t i on , w e a re u n p e r s u a d e d b y O ’B e rry ’s a r g u m e n t in f a v o ro f e q u itab le to llin g . O ’B e rry ’s c la im w as pl ai nl y t i m e- barr ed, as the pert i nentfa ct s occ urre d i n 1 96 9, ov er30 ye ar s b e f o r e h e f ile d C o m p la in t # 1 . M o r e o v e r , a s th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e o b s e rv e d in h is re po rt , equi t abl e t ol l i ng w ou l d n othave been w arra nt ed, si nce: (1) O ’ B erryfa i l ed to d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e n e w ly d is c o v e r e d e v id e n c e w a s n e c e s s a ry to in f o rm h im thathe had b ee n subj ec tt o con st i tut i on al vi ol at i on s i n 1 96 9; and (2) O ’ B erry a r guabl y c oul d ha ve di s c ove r e d the f a c t s gi vi ng r i s e t o hi s c om pl a i nte a r l i e r , ha d he e x e r c is e d “r e a s o n ab ly p ru d e n t r e g a r d f o rh is r ig h ts .” R o z a r , 8 5 F .3 d a t 5 6 1 - 6 2 . W e a gr e e tha tO ’ B e rry ’ s C om pl a i nt#1 w a s pr ope r l y f r a m e d a s a§ 1983 c l a i m , a nd th a t it w a s p la in ly tim e - b a rr e d . M o r e o v e r , w e d is c e rn n o e rr o rin th e m a g is tr a te j udge ’ s a nd the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e f us a l t o gr a ntO ’ B e rry l e a ve t o a m e nd C om pl a i nt # 1 , as p erm i tt i n g an am en d m en ti n th i s case w o u l d h av e b een fu t i l e. A cco rd i n g l y, w e a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of C om pl a i nt#1. 3no t err

in re fu singto re fu

nd any (alle g e dly

) exce ssivefi lingfe e s. As noted previously, section 1983 “provides a c ause of action for

constitutional 4 violations committed under color of state law. To prevail, plaintiffs must demonstrate both that the def endants deprived them of a right secure d under theConstitution or federal lawand that the deprivation occur

red under color of

state law.”Bur

ton, 178 F.3d at 1187- 88. Section 1985 addre ssees c onspiracie s to interfere with civil rights. Chil dreev. UAP/GA Chem. Inc., 92 F .3d 1140, 1146 (11th Cir. 1996). Section 1986 provides that if a person ha s knowledg e of a conspiracy

in violation of § 1985 and has the power to prevent the violation, but refuses or neg lects to do so, he may be liable under § 1986.

11 B . A r gum e nt s O n A ppe a l C onc e rni ng C om pl a i nt#2 W i th res pectt o C om pl ai nt#2 , O ’ B erry ’ s a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n d i sm i ss i ng C om pl ai nt#2 on re s j ud i ca t a groun ds, w i tho utal l ow i ng hi m an o p p o r tu n ity to jo in h is tw o c o m p la in ts . H e a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e c o u r t im p r o p e r ly construed hi s c om pl ai ntas bei ng brou gh tent i re l y pursuantt o § 19 83 , ra ther than tr e a t i ng i ta s ba s e d i n §§ 1983, 1985( 3) , a nd 1986. 4 A s not ed previ ou sl y, w e r evi ew de no vo a di sm i ss al for f ai l ure t o st at e a cl ai m un der § 19 15 A . L ea l , 25 4 F . 3d at12 78 -79. T he det erm i nat i on thatre s ju d ic a taap p lie s is ap u r e q u e s tio n o f la w th a t is r e v ie w e d d e n o v o . N o r f o lk S ou thern C orp. v. C hevron , U . S . A . , Inc. , 37 1 F . 3d 12 85 , 12 88 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). T he doc tr i ne of

r e s j udi c a t aba r s as ubs e que nta c t i on i f: ( 1) the pr i orde c i s i on w a s r e nde r e d by ac our tof c om pe t e ntj ur i s di c t i on; ( 2) the r e w a s af i na l j udgm e nt on the m e r i t s ; ( 3) the pa r t i e s a r e the s a m e i n both s ui t s ; a nd ( 4) the pr i ora nd pr e s e ntc a us e s of

a c t i on a r e the s a m e . S e e D a vi l av. D e l t aA i rL i ne s , I nc . , 326 F . 3d12

11 83 , 11 87 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on s a nd qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). T he bar “p e r ta in s n o t o n ly to c la im s th a t w e r e r a is e d in th e p r io ra c tio n . . . b u t a ls o to cl ai m s thatcoul d h ave been ra i se d p re vi ou sl y. ” I d. (c i t at i on om i tt ed) I n de t e rm i ni ng i f

“ pr i ora nd pr e s e ntc aus e s of a c t i on a r e the s a m e , w e m us tde c i de w hether the ac t i on s a ri se ou tof the sa m e nucl eus of operat i ve fa ct , or ar e bas ed u p o n th e s a m e f

a c tu a l p r e d ic a te .” I d . ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o rr e c tly d e te rm in e d th a t O ’B e rry ’s c la im in C om pl ai nt#2 w as barr ed by re s j ud i ca t a. T he di stri ctcourthad j uri sdi ct i on ov er O ’ B e rry ’ s c om pl a i nti n C om pl a i nt#1, a nd the c our t ’ s de t e rm i na t i on i n C om pl a i nt #1 thatO ’ B erryhad fai l ed t o st at e acl ai m up on w hi ch re l i ef coul d b e gra nt ed const i tut ed a f

i nal j ud gm enton the m er i t s. M oreover, C om pl ai nt#2 al l eged that th e s a m e d e f

e n d a n ts c o m m itte d th e s a m e w r o n g d o in g s th a t O ’B e rry h a d a lle g e d in C om pl ai nt#1 , there by supp ort i ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s ul t i m at e c on cl usi on thatre s j ud i ca t a w as appl i cabl e. W h ile it is tru e th a t in C o m p la in t # 2 O ’B e rry n a m e d a s d e f e n d a n ts th e C ity of F t . L auderdal e, an i nd i vi du al A ss i st antS t at e A tt orney, and i nd i vi du al po l i ce of f i c e r s , w he r e a s i n C om pl a i nt#1 O ’ B e rry na m e d a s de f e nda nt s the O f

f i c e of the S ta te A tto rn e y a n d th e F t. L au d e r d a le P o lic e D e p a r tm e n t, th e e s s e n c e o f b o th c om pl a i nt s w a s tha tboth the S t a t e A tt orne y ’ s of f i c e a nd the P ol i c e D e pa r tm e ntWe alsono te , a s th edis tric t c ourt did , that even if

re s judic ata

wa s n ot a

ba r to 5 O’B err y ’s claim in Complaint #2, the action would nevertheless would beplainly time-barred– just as Compl aint #1 was–dueto the four- year statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 ac tions under F lorida law. 13 fa l si fi ed evi dence t o i m prop er l y i nd i ct , arre st , conv i ct , and sent ence hi m . In other w o r d s , th e s e tw o c la im s , w h ic h a r o s e “o u t o f th e s a m e n u c le u s o f

o p e r a tiv e f

a c t” a n d a r e “ b a s e d o n th e s a me f a c tu a l p r e d i c a t e , ” i n v o l v e d e s s e n t i a l l y th e s a me d e f e n d a n ts a n d th e s a m e c au s e s o f a c tio n . T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a c te d p r o p e r ly in c onc l udi ng tha tr e s j udi c a t aappl i e s , a nd O ’ B e rry ha s of f e r e d no e vi de nc e t o the co n trary. 5 F urtherm ore, al tho ug h the di stri ctcourtdi d n otexpl ai n w hy i tconsi dere d O ’ B erry ’ s c l ai m i n C om pl ai nt#2 as bei ng base d ent i re l y und er§ 1 98 3, ra ther than i nc l udi ng §§ 1985( 3) a nd 1986, a ny a c t i on br oughtunde r§§ 1985( 3) a nd 1986 w ou l d al so have been barre d b y r es j ud i ca t a, because O ’ B errycoul d h ave r ai se d th o s e c l a i m s i n C o m p l a i n t# 1 . S e e Da v i l a , 3 2 6 F . 3 d a t1 1 8 7 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of C om pl a i nt#2.

I I I . CONCL US I ON O ’ B e rry , apr o s e pr i s one r , ha s appe a l e d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of C om pl ai nt s #1and #2 , bo th o f w hi ch al l eged const i tut i on al vi ol at i on s on the part th e F lo r id aS ta te A tto rn e y ’s O f f ic e a n d th e F t. L au d e r d a le P o lic e D e p a r tm e n t in14

c onne c t i on w i th hi s i ndi c tm e nta nd c onvi c t i on f orr ape i n 1969. A f

t e rr e vi e w i ng th e reco rd , w e d i scern n o erro r i n th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d i sm i ssal o f th ese co m p l ai n t s, s i nc e C om pl a i nt#1 w a s pl a i nl y t i m e - ba rr e d a nd C om pl a i nt#2 w a s ba rr e d by the re s j ud i ca t a e ff

ec tof C om pl ai nt#1 . A cc ordi ng l y, w e A F F I R M.