Alexis Antonio White v. The City of Atlanta, at Al ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                           [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT           FILED
    ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    DECEMBER 9, 2011
    No. 11-11955
    Non-Argument Calendar             JOHN LEY
    CLERK
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cv-03584-CC
    ALEXIS ANTONIO WHITE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    THE CITY OF ATLANTA,
    a Municipal Corporation of the State of Georgia,
    d.b.a. Atlanta Police Department,
    SCOTT E. DUNCAN,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    JOHN DOE 1, et al.,
    Defendants.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Georgia
    ________________________
    (December 9, 2011)
    Before HULL, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Alexis White appeals the summary judgment against his complaint about the
    violation of his civil rights by the City of Atlanta and Officer Scott E. Duncan.
    Duncan interviewed White after he had conspired with three corrupt police
    officers, Gregg Junnier, Jason Smith, and Arthur Tesler, to corroborate a false
    affidavit and to conceal their unfounded search of a home for drugs that resulted in
    the death of homeowner Kathryn Johnston. White complained that he was falsely
    imprisoned during Duncan’s interview, 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    , and that the officers and
    the City conspired to coerce White to conceal the illegal activities, 
    id.
     § 1985(2),
    and violated state law. After the district court dismissed Junnier, Smith, and
    Tesler, Duncan and the City moved for summary judgment. The district court
    ruled that White failed to establish that he was falsely imprisoned or that Duncan
    or the City were parties to an illegal conspiracy, and the district court dismissed
    without prejudice White’s claims under state law. We affirm.
    2
    White argues that a genuine factual dispute exists about whether he was
    falsely imprisoned by Duncan, but White’s trial testimony contradicts his
    argument. During Tesler’s trial, White testified that he agreed to meet Duncan and
    climbed into his vehicle because he did not want to be seen “talking to the police”
    because “it isn’t something you do.” White argues that he was unable to escape
    from Duncan’s vehicle, but White testified that he was “just ask[ed] . . . questions”
    regarding the drug transaction at Mrs. Johnston’s house during the “approximately
    eight minutes” that he contends he was wrongfully detained.
    White also argues that a genuine factual dispute exists about whether
    Duncan conspired to violate his civil rights, but White failed to submit any
    evidence that Duncan even knew of the alleged conspiracy. White assumes that
    Duncan was involved based on evidence that the conspirators’ supervisor, Lt.
    Stacy Gibbs, warned officers before field inspections to “clean out” their desks
    and police vehicles; Gibbs dispatched Duncan to question White; Junnier
    instructed White how to act when interviewed by Duncan; Smith gave White’s
    contact information to Duncan; Duncan insisted that White view a photographic
    line-up at the police station before he met with Agent Eric Degree of the Bureau of
    Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; and Duncan chased White after he fled Duncan’s
    vehicle en route to the police station. White contends that “a rational trier of fact
    3
    might infer” from these facts that “Duncan was aware of the illegal goals of the
    conspiracy” and “shared the purpose of the conspiracy,” but White’s purported
    “‘evidence,’ consisting of one speculative inference heaped upon another, [is]
    entirely insufficient” to establish that Duncan joined the conspiracy. Josendis v.
    Wall To Wall Residence Repairs Inc., No. 09-12266, slip op. at 50 (11th Cir. Nov.
    17, 2011). Viewed in the light most favorable to White, the record establishes that
    Gibbs was a corrupt supervisor, the corrupt officers prepared White to meet with
    Duncan, and Duncan questioned White and then pursued a material witness to
    complete his investigation.
    White challenges on two grounds the judgment in favor of the City, but both
    of his grounds lack merit. First, White argues that the policies of the City caused
    the “conspira[tors] to violate [his] civil rights,” but White failed to provide any
    “‘direct causal link between’” the policies regarding arrest quotas and acceptance
    of fabricated warrants and the alleged coercion by the corrupt officers, Snow ex
    rel. Snow v. City of Citronelle, Ala., 
    420 F.3d 1262
    , 1271 (11th Cir. 2005)
    (quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 
    489 U.S. 378
    , 385, 
    109 S. Ct. 1197
    , 1203
    (1989)). Second, White argues that the City is liable under state law, but the
    district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this argument and
    White does not challenge that decision.
    4
    White makes three other arguments, all of which are frivolous. First, White
    lists as an issue that the “intracorporate conspiracy doctrine does not apply to
    claims arising under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(2),” but White fails to identify an
    adverse ruling by the district court on this issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9).
    Second, White argues that Duncan was not entitled to qualified immunity, but the
    district court did not reach that issue because it determined that White failed to
    produce any evidence that “Duncan reached an agreement with” the three corrupt
    police officers. Third, White argues that Duncan was not entitled to official
    immunity for his alleged violations of state law, but Duncan does not challenge the
    dismissal without prejudice of these claims.
    We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Duncan and the City.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-11955

Judges: Hull, Pryor, Black

Filed Date: 12/9/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024