Shawn Massey v. J. Ojaniit
Filing
PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion granting Motion to file formal brief [999324888-2]; granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999156482-2] Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00477-RJC-DCK. [999399103]. [13-1460]
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 1 of 32
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1460
SHAWN MASSEY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
J. J. OJANIIT, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Officer; GERALD
ESPOSITO, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Officer; TOM G.
LEDFORD, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Officer; JOHN AND
JANE DOES, #1-10, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Officers,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cv-00477-RJC-DCK)
Argued:
March 19, 2014
Decided:
July 21, 2014
Before MOTZ, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by published opinion.
Judge King wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge
Thacker joined.
ARGUED: James Earl Coleman, Jr., DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW,
Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
James P. Cooney, III,
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North
Carolina; Daniel Edward Peterson, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE
CITY OF CHARLOTTE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON
BRIEF: Lori R. Keeton, PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellees.
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 2 of 32
KING, Circuit Judge:
In early 2010, plaintiff Shawn Massey was released from a
North Carolina prison after a state court in Mecklenburg County
struck five verdicts that had been rendered against him in 1999.
Following
his
release,
Massey
initiated
this
civil
action
against officers of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and North Carolina law, alleging, inter
alia, that they had fabricated evidence that led to his arrest,
convictions,
and
nearly-twelve-year
incarceration.
The
three
named defendants — Officers J. J. Ojaniit, Gerald Esposito, and
Tom G. Ledford — successfully moved in the district court for
judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure.
Massey
has
appealed
the
court’s
judgment, and, as explained below, we affirm as to Ojaniit and
Esposito and dismiss the appeal as to Ledford. 1
1
Massey’s complaint also asserts claims against “John and
Jane Does, #1-10.”
The district court dismissed those claims
without prejudice, invoking our decision in Schiff v. Kennedy.
See 691 F.2d 196, 198 (4th Cir. 1982) (explaining that, “if it
does not appear that the true identity of an unnamed party can
be discovered through discovery or through intervention by the
court, the court could dismiss the action without prejudice”
(footnote omitted)).
On appeal, Massey does not contest the
dismissal of his claims against the unnamed defendants.
2
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 3 of 32
I.
On September 23, 2011, Massey filed his complaint in the
Western District of North Carolina, alleging § 1983 claims for
violation
of
due
process
under
the
Fifth
and
Fourteenth
Amendments, unreasonable seizure and malicious prosecution under
the
Fourth
contravene
asserts
and
his
state
Fourteenth
Amendments,
and
constitutional
rights.
The
law
claims
for
obstruction
of
conspiracy
complaint
justice,
imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy.
to
also
false
Officers
Ojaniit, Esposito, and Ledford separately answered the complaint
in November 2011, and shortly thereafter each moved for a Rule
12(c) judgment on the pleadings.
In their motions, the officers
contended that the complaint failed to state any claim against
them upon which relief could be granted, and that they were
entitled to qualified immunity.
recommended
granting
Ledford’s
Although a magistrate judge
Rule
12(c)
motion
and
denying
those of Ojaniit and Esposito, see Massey v. Ojaniit, No. 3:11cv-00477 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 17, 2012), ECF No. 44 (the “Report”),
the district court granted all three motions and dismissed the
complaint in its entirety, see Massey v. Ojaniit, No. 3:11-cv00477 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2013), ECF No. 52 (the “Order”). 2
2
The Report is found at J.A. 447-64, and the Order at J.A.
465-94. (Citations herein to “J.A. __” refer to the contents of
the Joint Appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.)
3
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 4 of 32
A.
In conducting its analysis, the district court recognized
that “Rule 12(c) motions are governed by the same standard as
motions brought under Rule 12(b)(6).”
Order 12 (citing Edwards
v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999)).
As
such, the court deemed itself obliged to “‘accept as true all
well-pleaded
allegations’”
and
to
“‘view
light most favorable to [Massey].’”
the
complaint
in
a
Id. (quoting Mylan Labs.,
Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993)).
The court
also observed, however, that it “need not accept allegations
that ‘contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or
[by] exhibit.’”
Id. (quoting Blankenship v. Manchin, 471 F.3d
523, 529 (4th Cir. 2006)).
Open to the district court’s consideration were Massey’s
complaint;
the
officers’
answers
thereto;
matters
of
public
record; exhibits to the answers (as there were no exhibits to
the complaint); and exhibits to the Rule 12(c) motions that were
integral
to
the
(citing
Fed.
R.
complaint
Civ.
P.
and
10(c);
authentic.
Philips
See
12-13
Pitt
v.
Order
Cnty.
Mem’l
Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009)).
significant
criminal
attention
trial,
see
to
J.A.
the
transcript
91-436,
of
The court gave
Massey’s
underscoring
that
1999
the
transcript was “a public record whose authenticity is not in
dispute” and had “been submitted as an exhibit [to the officers’
4
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
answers].”
Filed: 07/21/2014
See Order 16 n.4.
Pg: 5 of 32
Additionally, there are repeated
references to the 1999 trial transcript in Massey’s complaint.
1.
As
the
complaint,
the
1999
trial
transcript,
and
other
exhibits reflect, Emerald Bay Apartments resident Samantha Wood
contacted the Charlotte–Mecklenburg Police Department on May 22,
1998,
and
reported
that
she
and
her
two
young
children
had
arrived home at about 10:00 a.m. to find an armed man at the
doorway
of
their
apartment.
The
man
held
a
gun
to
Wood’s
eighteen-month-old daughter’s head, pushed the family inside the
apartment,
and
menstruating,
attempted
the
man
to
ceased
rape
that
Wood.
Because
pursuit
and
Wood
proceeded
was
to
search for money, inducing Wood to hand over sixty dollars from
her purse.
On then exiting the apartment, the man warned Wood
that if she called the police, he would kill her and her family.
The man spent approximately thirty minutes in the apartment.
Despite her assailant’s threat, Wood called the police, and
Officers Ojaniit and Esposito were promptly dispatched to the
crime
scene.
Ojaniit
documented
Wood’s
description
of
the
culprit as a 5ʹ9ʺ, 180-pound black man who wore “his hair pulled
back from his face and (4) small braids on the back of his
head.”
J.A. 73 (May 22, 1998 report of Ojaniit attached as
exhibit to officers’ answers).
The report further reflects that
5
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 6 of 32
Wood described the man as wearing a red shirt and blue denim
shorts.
The following day, the two officers returned to the 250unit apartment complex in search of witnesses.
The property
manager, Theresa Savall, reported that she had encountered a
black man in his twenties, approximately 5’11” and at least 165
pounds, as she was walking around the complex between 10:00 and
11:00 a.m. the previous day.
Because Savall stated that the man
approached her after exiting from the rear patio area of Unit
5038-C, Officer Esposito sought to interview the resident of
that apartment, April Pride.
that
he
was
investigating
After Esposito misinformed Pride
a
noise
complaint,
Pride
advised
Esposito that her friend Shawn Massey had spent the previous
night in her apartment.
According to Esposito’s report, Pride
described Massey as being twenty-five years old and “wear[ing]
his hair pulled back with 4 or 5 braids.”
J.A. 75 (May 23, 1998
report of Esposito attached as exhibit to officers’ answers).
That description was “almost verbatim the same description that
Ms. Wood had given of her assailant’s hairstyle.”
Compl. ¶ 19.
Officer Ojaniit thereafter transported Wood to the police
station to review a six-photograph array that had been prepared
by Officer Ledford and that included a mug shot of Massey taken
at the time of a previous arrest.
lineup
attached
as
exhibit
to
6
See J.A. 76 (photographic
officers’
answers).
Ojaniit
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
showed
Wood
the
Filed: 07/21/2014
lineup,
and
Pg: 7 of 32
Wood
selected
“looking the most like” her assailant.
added).
Massey’s
photo
as
Compl. ¶ 20 (emphasis
Ojaniit wrote in his report, however, that Wood said
that Massey’s photo “looked like the suspect except that the
suspect
beard.”
had
longer
J.A.
77
hair
with
(emphasis
braids
added)
and
(May
he
23,
did
1998
Ojaniit attached as exhibit to officers’ answers).
not
have
report
a
of
Three days
later, on May 26, 1998, Ledford presented the same array of
photos to Savall, who identified Massey as the person who had
spoken to her at the apartment complex on the morning of May 22,
1998. 3
2.
Based on the witnesses’ photo identifications of Massey and
Pride’s statements placing him near the crime scene, Officer
Ledford secured arrest warrants on July 7, 1998, charging Massey
with
one
count
each
of
robbery
with
a
dangerous
weapon
and
felonious breaking and entering, plus three counts of seconddegree kidnapping.
exhibit
to
answers
See J.A. 78-85 (arrest warrants attached as
of
Officers
Ojaniit
and
Esposito).
On
September 8, 1998, a grand jury in Mecklenburg County returned
3
Officer Ledford’s report of May 26, 1998, documenting
Savall’s identification of Massey in the photographic lineup,
was attached as an exhibit to Ledford’s answer but is not
included in the Joint Appendix.
7
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 8 of 32
five indictments against Massey.
See id. at 86-90 (indictments
attached as exhibit to answers of Ojaniit and Esposito).
was
tried
on
the
consolidated
indictments
about
Massey
a
year
thereafter, beginning on September 13, 1999.
During
the
trial,
the
prosecution’s
witnesses
included
Wood, Savall, Pride, and Officers Ojaniit and Esposito.
Wood
detailed the events of May 22, 1998, and described her assailant
as having “braids in his hair, with five hanging down.”
136.
J.A.
Prompted by the prosecutor to specify whether “the braids
[went] all through his hair or were . . . just on the back or
just
on
the
through.”
sides,”
Wood
Id. at 137.
hair
“cornrows.”
See Compl. ¶ 2.
a
red,
that
the
braids
“went
In other words, Wood indicated that her
assailant’s
wore
was
testified
braided
jersey-like
in
what
are
commonly
known
as
She also stated that her assailant
shirt
with
hurricane
symbols
on
it.
Wood then made a positive in-court identification of Massey as
her assailant.
According to Wood, although Massey now had short
hair, she recognized him from his facial features, height, and
voice.
Savall described to the jury the man who had approached her
at the Emerald Bay Apartments on the morning of May 22, 1998,
explaining that “he was acting kind of hyper” and made comments
to
her
good.’”
such
as,
“‘Could
J.A. 166-67.
we
go
out,’”
and
“‘Baby,
you
look
Savall testified that the man was wearing
8
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 9 of 32
an orange-and-white jersey with long pants similar to jeans —
not the red jersey and denim shorts that Wood said her attacker
wore.
Savall did not notice the man’s hair during their three-
to-four-minute encounter because he was wearing a hat.
specifically, she did not “recall any braids.”
More
Id. at 176.
Savall was “fairly certain” that she had accurately recognized
the man in the photo lineup, id. at 172, and she made a positive
in-court identification of Massey.
Pride testified next for the prosecution, confirming that
Massey,
her
friend
of
about
ten
years,
had
stayed
in
her
apartment on the night of May 21, 1998, and was still there when
she
left
While
for
being
work
the
next
cross-examined
day,
by
at
the
approximately
defense,
a.m.
could
Pride
6:45
not
recall Massey ever having braids and stated that Massey wore a
“low,” or short, haircut, including on May 22, 1998.
190-91.
Pride’s
Esposito’s
report
evidence
of
his
May
thus
23,
conflicted
1998
See J.A.
with
interview
Officer
with
Pride,
insofar as the report indicated that Pride described Massey as
having hair in four or five braids.
On redirect examination by
the prosecutor, Pride testified that she did not recall having
so advised Esposito when he interviewed her.
Esposito testified
that
he
would
not
have
For his part,
recorded
Pride
as
describing Massey with braids if Pride had not said that in her
interview.
The trial court gave a limiting instruction with
9
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
respect to Esposito’s report:
Pg: 10 of 32
the jury could consider it for
the purpose of corroborating Pride’s testimony, “if indeed . . .
it
does
corroborate
purposes.”
Later,
her
testimony,”
but
not
“for
other
Id. at 206.
during
his
direct
and
cross-examinations,
Officer
Ojaniit was questioned about Wood’s identification of Massey in
the photographic lineup of May 23, 1998.
Ojaniit acknowledged
that, although his report reflected that Wood chose Massey’s
photo as looking “like” the suspect, Wood had actually said that
the photo looked “the most like” her assailant.
98, 304-05.
See J.A. 297-
The defense challenged the notion that “looking the
most like someone is . . . a positive I.D.,” prompting Ojaniit
to respond that “that’s a question you have to ask [Wood].”
Id.
at 305.
After the prosecution rested, the defense recalled Pride to
the witness stand.
She testified that she was “positive” that
Massey did not have braids in his hair on May 22, 1998, and she
reiterated
that
Officer Esposito.
she
had
not
made
See J.A. 377-78.
any
contrary
statement
to
In addition to Pride, the
defense called four of Massey’s friends and family members to
testify that Massey never wore braids.
Another defense witness
was Brady Dorsey, the bookkeeper for Massey’s employer, Dorsey
Concrete.
Dorsey, who had known Massey since Massey was a small
10
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 11 of 32
child, also testified that Massey had never had braids or long
hair.
Additionally, relevant to the alibi that Massey sought to
establish, Dorsey produced a payroll journal showing that Massey
worked eight hours on May 22, 1998, beginning at around 7:00
a.m.
Dorsey
elaborated
that
he
had
transported
Massey
from
Graymont Road (where Dorsey and Massey separately resided) to
the
job
site.
According
to
Dorsey,
he
and
Graymont sometime between 6:40 and 6:55 a.m.
was
thus
inconsistent
with
Pride’s
Massey
departed
Dorsey’s evidence
testimony,
which
placed
Massey in her apartment several miles from Graymont at about
6:45 a.m.
On September 17, 1999, the jury convicted Massey on all
five charges.
The trial court thereafter sentenced Massey to
103 to 133 months in prison for robbery with a dangerous weapon,
plus a consecutive term of 34 to 50 months for the remaining
four offenses.
Massey’s convictions and sentences were later
affirmed by the Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
See State
v. Massey, No. COA99-557 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2001) (attached
as
exhibit
to
Rule
12(c)
motions
of
Officers
Ojaniit
and
Ledford).
3.
In the mid-2000s, the Wrongful Conviction Clinic at Duke
University
(the
“Clinic”)
began
11
investigating
Massey’s
case.
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
See Compl. ¶¶ 32-33.
Pg: 12 of 32
The Clinic obtained a series of mug shots
of Massey taken on seven occasions between April 18, 1991, and
Each of the photos — including one taken on March
May 29, 1998.
9, 1998 — showed Massey with short hair.
photos,
two
professional
barbers
made
After examining the
affidavits
that
Massey
could not have grown his hair long enough to have it braided in
cornrows
against
between
Wood
and
March
her
9,
1998,
children,
and
May
the
date
22,
of
1998.
the
crimes
Furthermore,
according to the barbers, if Massey had cornrows on May 22,
1998, the lines in his scalp left by the braiding would have
been visible in his May 29, 1998 photo, but no such lines were
apparent.
despite
The Clinic also interviewed Wood and discovered that,
her
unequivocal
identification
of
Massey
during
the
trial, she had expressed doubt to the prosecutor that Massey was
her assailant after she first saw him in court, before hearing
him
speak
Wood’s
and
initial
further
observing
reservations
him
were
at
not
a
pretrial
conveyed
to
hearing.
defense
counsel.
The
Clinic
presented
its
investigation
Attorney of Mecklenburg County.
to
the
District
As a result, on May 5, 2010,
the prosecutor moved in state court to set aside the jury’s
verdicts against Massey and have him released from custody.
The
motion explained that the evidence uncovered by the Clinic made
“it likely that a jury would conclude that although there is
12
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
substantial
Filed: 07/21/2014
evidence
Pg: 13 of 32
placing
[Massey]
in
the
area
and
identifying him as the perpetrator, there is reasonable doubt
about
whether
attached
as
prosecutor’s
he
committed
exhibit
to
motion,
the
offense.”
officers’
the
court
J.A.
answers).
65
(motion
granting
the
that,
concluded
In
“[g]iven
the
totality of the circumstances that now exist[] in this case, if
the jury had all the facts that are now available, it cannot be
said with certainty that the jury would have reached the same
conclusion.”
4
(N.C.
officers’
verdicts
State v. Massey, No. 98-CRS-033738(L), slip op. at
Super.
Ct.
answers).
against
May
6,
The
Massey
immediately from custody.
2010)
court
and
(attached
ordered
that
exhibit
struck
therefore
as
the
he
be
to
five
released
Massey was freed that same day.
B.
In
these
post-release
civil
proceedings,
the
crux
of
Massey’s § 1983 and state law claims is that he was wrongfully
arrested,
convicted,
officers’
fabrication
and
of
incarcerated
evidence.
as
a
result
Specifically,
of
the
Massey’s
claims are based on two allegedly falsified reports, both of May
23, 1998:
Officer Esposito’s report that Pride described Massey
as “wear[ing] his hair pulled back with 4 or 5 braids,” J.A. 75,
and
Officer
Ojaniit’s
report
that
Wood
stated
photo “looked like the suspect,” id. at 77.
that
Massey’s
By his Report of
August 17, 2012, addressing the officers’ Rule 12(c) motions,
13
Appeal: 13-1460
the
Doc: 52
magistrate
Filed: 07/21/2014
judge
Pg: 14 of 32
recommended
the
dismissal
of
Massey’s
claims against Officer Ledford, explaining that the complaint
was “completely devoid of any factual allegations that would
support claims of wrongdoing” with respect to him.
17.
See Report
The magistrate judge further recommended, however, that the
Rule 12(c) motions of Ojaniit and Esposito be denied, as Massey
had “stated plausible allegations of constitutional violations”
perpetrated by those two defendants, and it would be “premature
to grant their requests for judgment.”
Id.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Officers Ojaniit and Esposito
timely objected to the Report.
Massey responded to Ojaniit’s
and Esposito’s objections, urging the district court to allow
his
claims
response
against
explicitly
magistrate
judge’s
those
defendants
renounced
any
recommendation
Officer Ledford be dismissed.
to
proceed.
objection,
that
the
Massey’s
however,
claims
to
the
against
Massey therefore asked the court
to adopt the Report in full.
For the reasons explained in its Order of March 29, 2013,
the district court opted instead to grant all three Rule 12(c)
motions and dismiss Massey’s complaint in its entirety.
The
court determined, applying the standard of Rule 12(b)(6), that
Massey
had
failed
to
state
Ojaniit
or
Officer
Esposito
a
on
14
§ 1983
which
claim
relief
against
can
be
Officer
granted.
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Accordingly,
Filed: 07/21/2014
the
court
Pg: 15 of 32
concluded
that
those
officers
were
entitled to qualified immunity under the first step of the twostep procedure spelled out in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194
(2001); under that step, “a court must decide whether the facts
that a plaintiff has alleged or shown make out a violation of a
constitutional right.”
See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223,
232 (2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 12(c), 50, 56).
Without addressing Massey’s acquiescence to the dismissal of his
claims
against
Officer
Ledford,
the
district
court
similarly
ruled that Ledford was entitled to qualified immunity in the
absence of any colorable § 1983 claim being stated against him.
Finally, again applying the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, the court
dismissed the state law claims against all three defendants for
failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Massey timely noted this appeal from the district court’s
judgment,
§ 1291.
and
we
possess
jurisdiction
pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
He challenges the dismissal of his claims against not
only Officers Ojaniit and Esposito, but also Officer Ledford.
II.
A.
We begin with Massey’s attempt to revive his claims against
Officer Ledford.
As noted above, Massey unequivocally advised
the district court that he did not object to the Report insofar
15
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 16 of 32
as the magistrate judge recommended the granting of Ledford’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(c).
he
can
appeal
Ledford’s
the
favor.
Massey nevertheless now maintains that
district
Our
court’s
precedent,
entry
however,
of
is
judgment
“replete
in
with
warnings that the consequence of failing to file objections [to
a magistrate judge’s report] is waiver of the right to appeal.”
Wells
v.
Shriners
Hosp.,
109
F.3d
198,
199
(4th
Cir.
1997)
(listing cases).
It is no help to Massey that the district court conducted a
de novo review of the magistrate judge’s recommendations with
respect to Officer Ledford, because such review cannot cure the
failure
to
properly
and
timely
object.
The
Supreme
Court’s
decision in Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), is instructive.
There, the Court held that “a court of appeals may exercise its
supervisory powers to establish a rule that the failure to file
objections to the magistrate’s report waives the right to appeal
the district court’s judgment.”
Thomas, 474 U.S. at 142.
The
Court also affirmed the Sixth Circuit’s application of such a
rule to Thomas, who was deemed to have waived appellate review
by failing to object to a magistrate judge’s report, even though
the district court had conducted a subsequent de novo review of
the entire record and dismissed Thomas’s habeas corpus petition
on the merits.
See id. at 144-45.
16
We likewise conclude that
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 17 of 32
Massey has waived his right to appeal the judgment in Ledford’s
favor.
Accordingly, we dismiss Massey’s appeal as to Ledford.
B.
Next, we review the district court’s disposition of the
Rule
12(c)
threshold
motions
matter,
of
we
Officers
Ojaniit
address
Massey’s
and
Esposito.
contention
As
that
a
the
court’s consideration of the officers’ exhibits — particularly
the transcript of the 1999 criminal trial — “went far beyond the
narrow circumstance in which a court can rely upon documents
attached to pleadings without converting a Rule 12(c) motion
into one for summary judgment.”
Br. of Appellant 28.
Notably,
prior to issuing his Report, the magistrate judge had denied
Massey’s
request
to
strike
the
officers’
exhibits
or,
alternatively, to convert their Rule 12(c) motions to summary
judgment motions.
Massey’s
court’s
primary
reliance
on
grievance
the
1999
with
trial
respect
to
transcript
the
is
district
that
the
transcript is “‘neither a “fact,” nor was it construed in the
light most favorable to [him].’”
Br. of Appellant 29 (quoting
Clatterbuck v. City of Charlottesville, 708 F.3d 549, 557 (4th
Cir. 2013)).
We recently reiterated in Clatterbuck that, in
disposing of a Rule 12(c) motion, “courts may consider relevant
facts obtained from the public record, so long as these facts
are construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff along
17
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 18 of 32
with the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint.”
708 F.3d
at 557 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Fed. R. Civ.
P.
12(d)).
Contrary
to
Massey’s
assertion
of
error,
the
district court’s consideration of the 1999 trial transcript did
not run afoul of Clatterbuck or Rule 12(d).
Rather, the court
viewed the transcript as a “complete account of the testimony
and evidence offered at trial,” Order 5 n.2, and recognized that
the
transcript’s
presence
in
the
record
meant
that
certain
“facts (i.e. the nature of the testimony and evidence offered at
trial) are not in dispute,” id. at 16 n.4.
Significantly, the
court refrained from deciding any issue of the 1999 trial and
“form[ed] no judgment as to the credibility of any witness.”
See
id.
accuracy
at
or
5
n.2.
Moreover,
authenticity
of
Massey
the
does
not
dispute
the
transcript;
rather,
he
extensively quotes from it in his complaint.
See Compl. ¶¶ 24-
31.
In these circumstances, we approve of the district court’s
consideration of the 1999 trial transcript, as well as other
exhibits
to
the
officers’
discussed supra Part I.A.
answers
and
Rule
12(c)
motions,
Indeed, as part of our de novo review
of the court’s Rule 12(c) rulings, see Butler v. United States,
702 F.3d 749, 751-52 (4th Cir. 2012), we independently consider
those same documents.
Cf. Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem’l Hosp.,
572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009) (“In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6)
18
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 19 of 32
dismissal, we may properly take judicial notice of matters of
public record.
We may also consider documents attached to the
complaint, as well as those attached to the motion to dismiss,
so long as they are integral to the complaint and authentic.”
(citations omitted)).
C.
Turning to the merits of the district court’s award of Rule
12(c)
judgments
on
the
pleadings
to
Officers
Ojaniit
and
Esposito, our de novo review requires us to apply the standard
for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
See Butler, 702 F.3d at 751-52.
In
so doing, we are mindful that “[a] Rule 12(c) motion tests only
the sufficiency of the complaint and does not resolve the merits
of the plaintiff’s claims or any disputes of fact.”
Drager v.
PLIVA USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 470, 474 (4th Cir. 2014).
Like the
district
court,
allegations
of
we
are
Massey’s
required
to
complaint
accept
as
reasonable factual inferences in his favor.
all
true
and
are
not
obliged
to
accept
draw
all
See Edwards v. City
of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999).
we
well-pleaded
allegations
Nevertheless,
that
“represent
unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments,”
or that “contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice
or by exhibit.”
Blankenship v. Manchin, 471 F.3d 523, 529 (4th
Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
19
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
In
Filed: 07/21/2014
applying
the
Pg: 20 of 32
foregoing
standards,
the
complaint
will
survive only if it “states a plausible claim for relief.”
See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
Ojaniit
and
Esposito
have
asserted
Because Officers
qualified
immunity
with
respect to Massey’s § 1983 claims, our inquiry is whether Massey
has “plead[ed] factual matter that, if taken as true, states a
claim
that
[the
officers]
deprived
established constitutional rights.”
we
must
account,
take
the
assessing
two-step
(1)
the
of
his
See id. at 666.
qualified
“whether
him
immunity
facts
that
clearly
That is,
analysis
[Massey]
into
has
alleged . . . make out a violation of a constitutional right,”
and, if so, (2) “whether the right was clearly established at
the time of [the officers’] alleged misconduct.”
See Pearson v.
Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Like the district court, we conclude under the first step
of the qualified immunity analysis — with respect to each of
Massey’s § 1983 claims — that he has failed to state a claim on
which relief can be granted, and thus do not proceed to the
second step.
We also agree with the district court that Massey
has not pleaded any colorable state law claim. 4
4
Following oral argument, Massey moved under Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 27(a)(1) to file a supplemental brief
addressing the significance of Wood’s trial testimony clarifying
(Continued)
20
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 21 of 32
1.
The
§ 1983
claim
in
Count
I
of
the
complaint
alleges
violations of Massey’s right to due process, and thus concerns
the alleged use of fabricated evidence at trial to obtain his
convictions. 5
deprivations
law.”
The
of
Fourteenth
liberty
Amendment
accomplished
protects
without
due
“against
process
of
Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 145 (1979) (internal
quotation
“‘right
marks
not
to
omitted).
be
We
deprived
have
of
recognized
liberty
as
a
a
due
result
process
of
the
fabrication of evidence by a government officer acting in an
investigating capacity.’”
Washington v. Wilmore, 407 F.3d 274,
282 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342, 349
(2d Cir. 2000)); see also, e.g., Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d
273, 295-96 (3d Cir. 2014) (“[B]y fabricating evidence for use
in
a
criminal
prosecution,
a
state
actor
would
violate
a
that her assailant wore cornrows, rather there mere braids at
the back of his head. We grant that motion and have considered
the supplemental brief in rendering today’s decision.
5
The complaint asserts claims against state, rather than
federal, actors.
Thus, although Count I refers to both the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Massey’s relevant due process
protections are found in the Fourteenth, rather than the Fifth,
Amendment.
See, e.g., United States v. Hornsby, 666 F.3d 296,
310 (4th Cir. 2012) (explaining that “the Fourteenth Amendment’s
Due Process Clause is a limitation on state conduct,” while the
“due process protections against the federal government are
found in the Fifth Amendment”).
21
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 22 of 32
defendant’s [Fourteenth Amendment due process] rights regardless
of whether or not the state actor violated other constitutional
rights of the defendant.”).
Fabrication of evidence alone is insufficient to state a
claim
for
a
due
process
violation;
a
plaintiff
must
plead
adequate facts to establish that the loss of liberty — i.e., his
conviction
and
fabrication.
subsequent
—
incarceration
resulted
from
the
See Washington, 407 F.3d at 282-83 (citing Zahrey,
221 F.3d at 349).
The plaintiff must also be able to show that,
despite any intervening acts of independent decision-makers, the
“conviction was a reasonably foreseeable result of [the] initial
act of fabrication.”
City
of
Chicago,
prosecutor’s
indict,
a
Id. at 283 (citing, inter alia, Jones v.
856
decision
F.2d
to
prosecutor’s
985,
charge,
994
(7th
grand
not
decision
a
to
Cir.
jury’s
drop
1988)
(“[A]
decision
charges
but
to
to
proceed to trial — none of these decisions will shield a police
officer
who
deliberately
supplied
influenced the decision.”)).
v.
Chalmers,
misleading
information
that
As Judge Motz explained in Evans
“constitutional
torts,
like
their
common
law
brethren, require a demonstration of both but-for and proximate
causation.”
703 F.3d 636, 647 (4th Cir. 2012).
a.
Beginning with Officer Esposito, we take as true that he
fabricated
the
portion
of
his
May
22
23,
1998
report
recording
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 23 of 32
Pride’s statement that Massey wore braids.
We thus consider
whether Massey has pleaded adequate facts to support a causal
connection between that fabrication and his convictions.
At the outset, we must reject the main premise of Massey’s
case against the officers:
that “if [he] did not wear his hair
in cornrows on May 22, 1998, he could not have been the armed
black man who robbed and kidnaped Ms. Wood and her children.”
See Br. of Appellant 30-31; see also id. at 20 (asserting that
Massey “was exonerated in May 2010, when the equivalent of nonbiological DNA excluded him as a suspect in the crimes”).
The
problem for Massey, as the district court observed, is that he
raises to the level of certainty that the crime could
only have been committed by a person with braids.
This is an overstatement of an otherwise valid
argument.
That an eyewitness described an assailant
as having braids does not, by operation of nature or
law, exonerate all suspects who do not have braids; it
merely calls into question that aspect of the
description as applied against anyone not wearing
braids.
The factors which influence a witness[’s]
memory and perception are myriad; . . . it is within
the realm of possibility that a person can accurately
identify another person even as their perception or
memory is incorrect as to certain aspects of that
person’s appearance.
Order 18 n.6.
Indeed, although both Wood and Savall identified
Massey, they gave different descriptions of the clothes that he
wore at the time of the crimes.
Such discrepancy did not hinder
the jury from finding Massey guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Similarly,
the
jury
was
not
swayed
23
by
Massey’s
short-hair
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 24 of 32
defense — perhaps because it believed that Massey in fact had
braids,
perhaps
because
it
thought
that
Wood
misremembered
Massey’s hairstyle, or perhaps because it deemed his hair to be
non-dispositive in light of Wood’s identification of Massey from
his facial features, height, and voice.
Simply
put,
the
central
issue
at
trial
was
Massey had cornrows or any other type of braids.
prosecution’s
case
focused
on
the
not
whether
Rather, the
positive
in-court
identifications made by both Wood and Savall, as well as Pride’s
testimony contradicting Massey’s alibi and placing him at the
apartment complex the morning of the crimes.
The prosecutor
initially did not question Pride about Massey’s hairstyle, and
addressed
Officer
Esposito’s
report
only
after,
on
cross-
examination by the defense, Pride denied telling Esposito that
Massey
wore
braids.
At
most,
despite
the
trial
court’s
instruction that it was not to be used for impeachment purposes,
the report called Pride’s credibility into question.
In these
circumstances, we agree with the district court that there is
not a “sufficiently strong [causal nexus] to bear the conclusion
that the statement fabricated by Officer Esposito caused the
conviction[s] of Shawn Massey.”
See Order 20.
We further conclude that Massey’s convictions were not a
foreseeable consequence of the assumed fabrication.
That is, it
is not plausible that Officer Esposito could have anticipated
24
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 25 of 32
that, by falsely stating that Pride told him Massey wore braids,
Massey not only would be included in the photographic lineup,
but also would be identified by two witnesses (including the
victim)
—
both
by
photo
and
in
person
at
trial.
In
sum,
applying well-settled tort principles, we cannot say that the
fabrication
was
convictions.
a
but-for
or
proximate
cause
of
Massey’s
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment in Esposito’s
favor on Count I.
b.
Turning
to
Massey’s
Fourteenth
Amendment
claim
against
Officer Ojaniit, we accept that Ojaniit misrepresented Wood’s
identification of Massey from the photo lineup, omitting the
words “the most” from Wood’s statement that Massey looked “the
most
like”
contends,
her
assailant.
influenced
the
That
decisions
misrepresentation,
of
the
Massey
prosecutor,
grand
jury, and trial jury, thus leading to Massey’s convictions and
depriving him of due process of law.
We
disagree.
Even
assuming
that
Wood
did
not
truly
identify Massey in the photographic lineup, Savall unequivocally
selected Massey’s photo, and Pride placed him near the crime
scene.
Furthermore, Wood positively identified Massey as her
assailant at trial.
And, in his own trial testimony, Officer
Ojaniit
any
mitigated
identification
by
confusion
accurately
about
presenting
25
Wood’s
Wood’s
words
initial
to
the
Appeal: 13-1460
jury.
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 26 of 32
As such, Massey has failed to plead facts to indicate
that Ojaniit’s fabrication caused his convictions or that the
convictions
fabrication.
were
the
reasonably
foreseeable
result
of
the
We thus affirm the judgment on Ojaniit’s behalf as
to Count I.
2.
Next, the § 1983 claim in Count II of the complaint alleges
malicious prosecution and unreasonable seizure, and thus focuses
on the fabricated evidence’s role in securing Massey’s arrest
and continuing his prosecution. 6
That claim is properly “founded
6
Count II alleges violations of Massey’s Fourth Amendment
right to be free from unreasonable seizures, a right enforceable
against the states by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
See Camara v. Mun. Court of City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 387
U.S. 523, 528 (1967).
The distinction between the Fourteenth
Amendment due process claim in Count I (concerning Massey’s
convictions) and the Fourth Amendment claim in Count II
(focusing on his arrest) was recently explained by the Third
Circuit:
The boundary between Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth
Amendment claims is, at its core, temporal.
The
Fourth Amendment forbids a state from detaining an
individual unless the state actor reasonably believes
that the individual has committed a crime — that is,
the Fourth Amendment forbids a detention without
probable cause.
But this protection against unlawful
seizures extends only until trial.
The guarantee of
due process of law, by contrast, is not so limited as
it protects defendants during an entire criminal
proceeding through and after trial.
Halsey, 750 F.3d at 291 (citations omitted); see also Jones, 856
F.2d at 994 (“[A]t some point after a person is arrested, the
question whether his continued confinement or prosecution is
(Continued)
26
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 27 of 32
on a Fourth Amendment seizure that incorporates elements of the
analogous common law tort of malicious prosecution.”
Williams, 223 F.3d 257, 262 (4th Cir. 2000).
Lambert v.
To state such a
Fourth Amendment claim, “we have required that [1] the defendant
have seized plaintiff pursuant to legal process that was not
supported
by
probable
cause
and
[2]
that
the
proceedings have terminated in plaintiff’s favor.”
criminal
Durham v.
Horner, 690 F.3d 183, 188 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
As the officers have not contested that Massey
was seized or that the criminal proceedings terminated in his
favor, we focus solely on their contention that probable cause
existed to arrest Massey, even absent the alleged fabrications.
The Supreme Court has long made clear that “an indictment,
‘fair upon its face,’ returned by a ‘properly constituted grand
jury,’ conclusively determines the existence of probable cause.”
Durham, 690 F.3d at 188–89 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Gerstein v.
Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 117 n.19 (1975)).
“[N]otwithstanding the
conclusive effect” of an indictment, we have stressed that “a
grand jury’s decision to indict will not shield a police officer
who deliberately supplied misleading information that influenced
the decision.”
Id. at 189 (internal quotation marks omitted).
unconstitutional passes over from the Fourth Amendment to the
due process clause.”).
27
Appeal: 13-1460
Thus,
Doc: 52
while
Filed: 07/21/2014
“intervening
Pg: 28 of 32
acts
of
other
participants
in
the
criminal justice system,” such as an exercise of prosecutorial
discretion or the return of an indictment, generally “insulate a
police officer from liability,” Evans, 703 F.3d at 647, officers
may be liable to a wrongfully indicted defendant when they have,
e.g., lied to or misled the prosecutor, id. at 647-48.
False statements alone do not, however, run afoul of the
Fourth Amendment.
Cir.
1994).
See Wilkes v. Young, 28 F.3d 1362, 1365 (4th
To
contravene
the
Constitution,
“the
false
statements or omissions must be ‘material,’ that is, ‘necessary
to the finding of probable cause.’”
Cnty.,
Md.,
475
F.3d
621,
628
Miller v. Prince George’s
(4th
Cir.
2007)
(alteration
omitted) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 156 (1978)).
We
determine
inaccuracies”
materiality
and
then
by
“excis[ing]
assessing
whether
the
the
offending
“corrected”
evidence, excluding the misstatements, “would establish probable
cause.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Furthermore,
the false statements must have been made “deliberately or with a
reckless
disregard
for
the
truth,”
which
may
be
proved
by
showing that “when viewing all the evidence, the affiant must
have
entertained
serious
doubts
as
to
the
truth
of
his
statements or had obvious reasons to doubt the accuracy of the
information he reported.”
Id. at 627 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
28
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 29 of 32
It is on the materiality requirement that Massey’s Fourth
Amendment
claim
falls
short.
Though
Massey
alleges
that
Officers Esposito and Ojaniit deliberately supplied fabricated
evidence,
grand
he
jury’s
district
has
not
pleaded
probable
court
cause
determined,
facts
adequate
determination.
even
to
undercut
That
“remov[ing]
is,
the
as
the
the
fabricated
statement attributed to Officer Esposito and add[ing] the word
‘most’
to
exist[ed]
Officer
sufficient
Ojaniit’s
probable
Order 23 (emphasis omitted).
written
cause
to
report,
arrest
there
Shawn
still
Massey.”
The court further explained with
respect to Esposito’s fabrication:
Ultimately, it is a “fair probability” that a suspect
had committed a crime where the victim identifies the
suspect out of [a] six person photo lineup, a second
person independently identifies him (from the same six
person lineup) as having been near the scene of the
crime during the relevant period, and a third confirms
his identity and relates that she last saw him in the
vicinity of the crime area several hours earlier. The
discrepancies between the description by Wood and
Massey’s actual appearance, though relevant, do not
rise to the level to defeat probable cause. To obtain
the
warrant,
the
officers
needed
only
a
fair
probability that Massey committed the crime against
Wood.
The multiple identifications of Massey suffice
to exceed that threshold.
Id.
As to Ojaniit, the court observed that “probable cause to
arrest Massey [does not] disappear[] upon the inclusion of the
word ‘most’ in [Ojaniit’s] report.”
Id. at 25.
We agree and
thus affirm the entry of judgment for Ojaniit and Esposito on
Count II.
29
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 30 of 32
3.
According
complaint,
to
the
the
§ 1983
officers
constitutional rights.
claim
conspired
in
to
Count
deprive
III
of
of
Massey
the
his
To establish a conspiracy claim under
§ 1983, a plaintiff “must present evidence that the [defendants]
acted jointly in concert and that some overt act was done in
furtherance
deprivation
of
of
the
a
conspiracy
constitutional
which
resulted
right.”
Hinkle
in
v.
City
Clarksburg, W. Va., 81 F.3d 416, 421 (4th Cir. 1996).
Massey
has
constitutional
not
stated
right,
a
his
claim
Count
for
III
[the]
Because
deprivation
conspiracy
of
of
claim
properly dismissed as to Officers Ojaniit and Esposito.
a
was
See
Glassman v. Arlington Cnty., Va., 628 F.3d 140, 150 (4th Cir.
2010).
4.
The complaint finally alleges state law claims in Counts IV
and V for obstruction of justice, false imprisonment, malicious
prosecution,
Massey’s
and
conspiracy.
obstruction
of
The
justice
district
claim
in
court
reliance
dismissed
on
decision in Evans, where we recognized that,
[e]ven though North Carolina courts have interpreted
common-law
obstruction
of
justice
to
include
fabrication of evidence, . . . we have not found — and
plaintiffs have not offered — any case from any
jurisdiction recognizing a common-law obstruction of
justice claim against a police officer for his actions
relating to a criminal proceeding.
30
our
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 31 of 32
703 F.3d at 658 (citation omitted).
We therefore deemed it
unrealistic that North Carolina would uphold an obstruction of
justice claim in that context.
North
Carolina
case
law
Id.
developed
There has been a dearth of
since
Evans
was
decided.
Therefore, Evans controls this case as well.
Massey’s
other
state
law
claims
rationale as their federal counterparts.
fail
under
the
same
To sustain a malicious
prosecution claim, a plaintiff must establish, inter alia, that
the defendant lacked probable cause to initiate the proceeding
against the plaintiff.
510 (N.C. 1994).
False imprisonment also calls for the absence
of probable cause.
(N.C.
Ct.
App.
See Best v. Duke Univ., 448 S.E.2d 506,
See Moore v. Evans, 476 S.E.2d 415, 422
1996).
As
previously
shown,
the
officers
possessed ample probable cause to arrest Massey, even absent the
fabricated evidence.
Thus, Massey has not pleaded the elements
essential to a malicious prosecution or false imprisonment claim
under
North
Carolina
law.
Furthermore,
without
sufficiently
alleged wrongful acts, the conspiracy claim cannot survive.
See
State ex rel. Cooper v. Ridgeway Brands Mfg., 666 S.E.2d 107,
115
(N.C.
2008).
We
therefore
affirm
the
district
court’s
dismissal of the state claims alleged in Counts IV and V of the
complaint.
31
Appeal: 13-1460
Doc: 52
Filed: 07/21/2014
Pg: 32 of 32
III.
Pursuant to the foregoing, we affirm the judgment as to
Officers Ojaniit and Esposito, and we dismiss the appeal as to
Officer Ledford.
AFFIRMED IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART
32
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?