Opinion ID: 155277
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Facts according to Mr. Lawmaster

Text: Mr. Lawmaster filed the sole affidavit in response to the summary judgment motion. He avers the following facts: On the day his house was searched, Mr. Lawmaster's house had two adult Labrador dogs and one puppy, none of which -5- was vicious; rather, virtually all visitors to the home petted the dogs, and the dogs had never bitten anyone. The dogs were house trained and they seldom had accidents such that before the search, the house was free of stench or feces. Prior to the search, the house's back door was secured with a night latch, but could be opened from the inside by turning the door's knob. Dirty dishes were in the kitchen area, all clean clothes were in the closet or in drawers, and all dirty clothes were in a hamper. All food, videos, firearms, and ammunition were stored, and a few magazines were on the living room coffee table or on end tables. The house contained a paperweight resembling a bomb, an item commonly available at gun shows. About a dozen of Mr. Lawmaster's firearms were unloaded and stored in the locked gun vault. The following guns were not in the vault: a pistol in a basket in the living room; a pistol in the bedroom night stand; a shotgun attached to the bed's headboard; and an antique shotgun and black powder rifle on a mounted wall rack in the living room. Mr. Lawmaster is not a smoker, and no ashes or dirty ash trays were in the house. Upon returning home after the Agents' search, Mr. Lawmaster found both -6- the front and back doors had been forced open and the door jambs had been torn out; the back door was wide open and neither door could be held shut. To Mr. Lawmaster, it appeared dog feces had been tracked through the residence. Magazines and videos had been dumped from their storage areas and were scattered on the floor and on [the] furniture. All clothes, clean and dirty, were piled on the floor, under or about upended pieces of furniture, removed drawers and pieces of interior trim which had apparently been removed by the Agents. Cigar and cigarette ashes were scattered throughout the house and were mixed in with the bedding which had been stripped from [the] bed and left in a pile on the floor ... along with the up-ended mattress and box springs. All guns, gun cases, loose ammunition and the cases in which Mr. Lawmaster stored the ammunition were scattered throughout the house. Mr. Lawmaster's antique shotgun and his black powder rifle were lying on living room furniture. One of Mr. Lawmaster's pistols was submerged in the dogs' water bowl. Mr. Lawmaster filed this suit pursuant to Bivens alleging the Agents violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. 1 Also, Mr. Lawmaster asserted 1 In his complaint, Mr. Lawmaster also asserted the Agents made disparaging remarks about Mr. Lawmaster to the neighbors. However, Mr. Lawmaster expressly abandoned any libel or slander claims against the -7- that through its Agents, the United States committed the torts of trespass, conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 2 The Agents filed a motion to dismiss, or alternatively a motion for summary judgment. The United States also filed a motion to dismiss. (Aplt App. at 176.) After hearing argument, the district court converted the United States' motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. The district court entered summary judgment for the Agents on the ground of qualified immunity and entered summary judgment for the United States on the ground Mr. Lawmaster's complaint failed to support any tort action against the United States. government in his Response to Defendant United States' Motion to Dismiss filed in the district court. Accordingly, he does not rely on those facts in support of his arguments on appeal. 2 In his brief before this court, Mr. Lawmaster raises an additional claim that because the Agents' conduct amounted to a palpable taking of property without due process of law, the Fifth Amendment provides a claim for relief against the United States for his property loss. This claim was not raised in the complaint, and the district court did not address it. Because Mr. Lawmaster failed to raise the Fifth Amendment claim against the United States in his complaint, we refuse to consider it. See Charles v. Rice, 28 F.3d 1312, 1219 (1st Cir. 1994) (affirming a district court's refusal to consider an issue not raised in the complaint). Nevertheless, as explained in more detail below, Mr. Lawmaster fails to show how the Agents committed a palpable taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Consequently, even if we were to consider the claim's merits as against the United States, it would fail. -8- On appeal, Mr. Lawmaster argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants because the Agents were not entitled to qualified immunity and because Mr. Lawmaster's complaint and affidavit show the Agents committed torts for which the United States is liable. We consider these arguments in turn.