Jeffrey Scott Hall v. Jody Tallie ( 2015 )

Case: 14-11228 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-11228
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cv-01646-MHH-PWG
JEFFREY SCOTT HALL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JODY TALLIE,
CURTIS RIGNEY,
JAMISON LEE,
JOSHUA WHITE,
PAUL SEALE, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(January 15, 2015)
Case: 14-11228 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 2 of 5
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
At the time he brought this lawsuit, Jeffrey Scott Hall was confined in the
Shelby County jail in Columbiana, Alabama. According to the Magistrate Judge to
whom Hall’s case had been referred for consideration pursuant to the Prisoner
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 1043-134, § 804, 110 Stat. 1321, and
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Hall’s complaint, brought against multiple defendants—
including a Circuit Judge, the District Attorney, the Public Defender, his Guardian
ad litem, and several law enforcement officers—and seeking relief under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, “consisted solely of a vague narrative of events ostensibly connected with
involuntary commitment proceedings and associated criminal charges in Shelby
County.” Doc. 15, at 2. The Magistrate Judge therefore ordered Hall to re-plead
his complaint, and he did so. The amended complaint alleged, generally, (1) that
Hall had been improperly arrested and charged, all based on the false testimony of
one or more of the defendant law enforcement officers; (2) that pending trial, the
court, relying on the false testimony and the misconduct of the District Attorney
and his attorney, the Public Defender, committed him for mental health evaluation
and treatment; and (3) that the court thereafter denied Hall his speedy trial right by
delaying the final disposition of his criminal case, which is still pending.
2
Case: 14-11228 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 3 of 5
Upon reviewing Hall’s amended complaint, the Magistrate Judge sua sponte
discussed the merits of Hall’s claims, found that none stated a claim for relief, and
recommended that the District Court dismiss the amended complaint without
prejudice. The District Court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the
complaint without prejudice. Hall now appeals.
Hall argues that his ongoing detention and the mental health assessment
requirements are effectively being used to prevent him from having a speedy trial,
thus effecting a continuing violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. Liberally
construed, his brief argues that the violations of his rights committed by each of the
defendants contributed to a continuing deprivation of his right to trial.
We review de novo a district court’s 18 U.S.C. § 1915A sua sponte
dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, Leal v. Ga. Dep't of Corr., 254
F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam), taking the complaint’s allegations
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and accepting all of the plaintiff’s well-
pleaded facts as true, Christy v. Sheriff of Palm Beach Cnty., Fla., 288 F. App'x
658, 664 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (unpublished).
To sufficiently plead a § 1983 violation, a plaintiff must establish that: (1)
the conduct complained of was conducted by someone acting under the color of
state law, and (2) the conduct deprived him of legally recognized or Constitutional
rights, privileges, or immunities. Fullman v. Gradick, 739 F.2d 553, 561 (11th Cir.
3
Case: 14-11228 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 4 of 5
1984) (quoting Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535, 101 S. Ct. 1908, 68 L. Ed. 2d
420 (1981)). The violation must be alleged within the applicable statute of
limitations for personal injury claims in the relevant jurisdiction. Lovett v. Ray,
327 F.3d 1181, 1182 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Alabama’s statute of
limitations for personal injury claims is two years. See Ala. Code § 6-2-38(l).
Some parties are immune from § 1983 claims based on their official role.
See Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1172–73 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam)
(discussing various types of immunity for those involved in the public litigation
process). A judge is immune from a claim for monetary damages for any act taken
within the scope of the judicial role, even if the act is allegedly malicious, corrupt,
or beyond the scope of the court’s jurisdiction. Id. at 1172. Similarly, a prosecutor
is immune for actions taken within the scope of a criminal prosecution, such as
offering false evidence or declining to investigate allegations. Id. at 1173.
Public defenders, although employed by the government, are not typically
viewed as acting under color of state law. See Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914,
920, 104 S. Ct. 2820, 2823, 81 L. Ed. 2d 758 (1984). However, a public defender
may be liable under § 1983 if he or she conspires with someone who did deprive
the plaintiff of one or more of his legally recognized rights under color of state
law. Wahl, 773 F.2d at 1173. In addition to immunities for judges and attorneys,
witnesses—both public officials and private citizens— may also claim testimonial
4
Case: 14-11228 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 5 of 5
immunity from § 1983 claims. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 335–336, 103 S.
Ct. 1108, 1115–16, 75 L. Ed. 2d 96 (1983).
The dismissal of Hall’s claim against the Public Defender was appropriate
because Hall’s allegations that the Public Defender inappropriately hindered his
trial through mental health assessments are fleeting and conclusory. Hall failed to
illustrate facts sufficient to show that the Public Defender either acted under color
of state law or participated in a conspiracy. Further, Hall failed to link any of his
allegations to a redressable right.
The District Court’s dismissals of the claims against the law enforcement
officers were proper because Hall failed to connect bare factual allegations about
false police reports or testimony to a cognizable legal harm. Furthermore, the
District Court correctly noted that Hall’s claims against these individuals fell
outside of Alabama’s two year statute of limitations for personal injury claims, and
thus were barred. Finally, to the extent Hall’s claims alleged false testimony, the
district court properly found that these individuals would be covered by testimonial
immunity.
AFFIRMED.
5