Jerry Frank Townsend v. City of Miami , 212 F. App'x 831 ( 2006 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
FILED
No. 06-12863 .U .S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar
DECEMBER 21, 2006
________________________
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 03-21072-CV-AJ
DONALD R. SPARADO,
as Limited Guardian for Jerry Frank Townsend,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES E. BOONE, individually,
BRUCE CHARLES ROBERSON, individually,
as former police officer for the City of Miami,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(December 21, 2006)
Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
James E. Boone and Bruce Roberson, former police officers for the City of
Miami, Florida, appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss based
on qualified immunity. They contend that the district court erred because the 42
U.S.C. § 1983 malicious prosecution and Fifth Amendment claims filed by Jerry
Frank Townsend were not clearly established law in 1979 when Townsend alleges
that he was coerced into confessing, or in 1982 when he entered a guilty plea for
murder, resulting in his incarceration.1 They also claim that Townsend’s complaint
is barred by the statute of limitations.
We have considered the briefs and relevant parts of the record, and conclude
that the district court properly determined that Townsend’s complaint sufficiently
pled a malicious prosecution claim. Additionally, we find that Townsend’s claims,
as stated in his second amended complaint, are not barred by Chavez v. Martinez,
538 U.S. 760, 123 S. Ct. 1994, 155 L. Ed. 2d 984 (2003). We note that the district
court acknowledged that Boone and Roberson are free to move for summary
judgment on qualified immunity grounds should discovery show that the use of
Townsend’s confessions did not violate the Chavez requirements. We also find no
merit to the claim that Townsend is barred by the statute of limitations from
maintaining his § 1983 action.
The order denying the motion to dismiss is therefore
AFFIRMED.
1
Following an investigation in 2001, Townsend was exonerated by DNA evidence, and
his convictions in both Broward and Dade Counties were set aside.
2