Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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:
Decided:
his
release,
Massey
initiated
this
civil
action
and
nearly-twelve-year
incarceration.
The
three
of
Civil
Procedure.
Massey
has
appealed
the
courts
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
Fourth
contravene
asserts
and
his
state
Fourteenth
Amendments,
and
constitutional
rights.
The
law
claims
for
obstruction
of
conspiracy
complaint
justice,
to
also
false
Officers
granting
Ledfords
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
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).
As
allegations
and
to
view
the
complaint
in
The court
the
officers
answers
thereto;
matters
of
public
to
the
(citing
Fed.
R.
complaint
Civ.
P.
and
10(c);
authentic.
Philips
v.
See
Order
12-13
Pitt
Cnty.
Meml
attention
trial,
see
to
J.A.
the
transcript
91-436,
of
underscoring
that
1999
the
answers].
the
complaint,
the
1999
trial
transcript,
and
other
and
reported
that
she
and
her
two
young
children
had
of
their
apartment.
The
man
held
gun
to
Woods
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.
that if she called the police, he would kill her and her family.
The man spent approximately thirty minutes in the apartment.
Despite her assailants threat, Wood called the police, and
Officers Ojaniit and Esposito were promptly dispatched to the
crime
scene.
Ojaniit
documented
Woods
description
of
the
culprit as a 59, 180-pound black man who wore his hair pulled
back from his face and (4) small braids on the back of his
head.
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
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
noise
complaint,
Pride
advised
Esposito that her friend Shawn Massey had spent the previous
night in her apartment.
Compl. 19.
attached
as
exhibit
to
6
officers
answers).
Ojaniit
showed
Wood
the
lineup,
and
Wood
selected
Masseys
photo
as
Compl. 20 (emphasis
that Masseys 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
not
have
report
a
of
Three days
one
count
each
of
robbery
with
dangerous
weapon
and
to
answers
Officers
Ojaniit
and
Esposito).
On
tried
on
the
consolidated
indictments
about
Massey
a
year
the
trial,
the
prosecutions
witnesses
included
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.
on
the
through.
sides,
Wood
Id. at 137.
hair
cornrows.
See Compl. 2.
red,
that
the
braids
went
assailants
wore
was
testified
braided
jersey-like
in
what
are
commonly
known
as
shirt
with
hurricane
symbols
on
it.
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 did not notice the mans hair during their three-
More
Id. at 176.
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,
Pride
6:45
a.m.
could
not
recall Massey ever having braids and stated that Massey wore a
low, or short, haircut, including on May 22, 1998.
190-91.
Prides
Espositos
report
evidence
of
his
May
thus
23,
conflicted
1998
See J.A.
with
interview
Officer
with
Pride,
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
recorded
Pride
as
describing Massey with braids if Pride had not said that in her
interview.
does
corroborate
purposes.
Later,
her
testimony,
but
not
for
other
Id. at 206.
during
his
direct
and
cross-examinations,
Officer
Ojaniit acknowledged
Id.
at 305.
After the prosecution rested, the defense recalled Pride to
the witness stand.
Massey did not have braids in his hair on May 22, 1998, and she
reiterated
that
Officer Esposito.
she
had
not
made
any
contrary
statement
to
10
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
job
site.
According
to
Dorsey,
he
and
thus
inconsistent
with
Prides
Massey
departed
Dorseys evidence
testimony,
which
placed
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
Masseys
case.
two
professional
barbers
made
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,
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
Woods
and
initial
further
observing
reservations
him
were
at
not
pretrial
conveyed
to
hearing.
defense
counsel.
The
Clinic
presented
its
investigation
to
the
District
The
substantial
evidence
placing
[Massey]
in
the
area
and
whether
attached
as
prosecutors
he
committed
exhibit
to
motion,
the
offense.
officers
the
court
J.A.
answers).
concluded
65
(motion
In
granting
the
that,
[g]iven
the
(N.C.
officers
verdicts
Super.
Ct.
answers).
against
May
6,
The
Massey
2010)
court
and
(attached
therefore
ordered
that
as
exhibit
struck
the
he
be
to
five
released
In
these
post-release
civil
proceedings,
the
crux
of
convicted,
officers
fabrication
and
of
incarcerated
evidence.
as
result
Specifically,
of
the
Masseys
Officer
Ojaniits
report
that
Wood
stated
that
Masseys
By his Report of
the
magistrate
judge
recommended
the
dismissal
of
Masseys
See Report
Id.
claims
response
against
explicitly
magistrate
judges
those
defendants
renounced
any
recommendation
to
proceed.
objection,
that
the
Masseys
however,
claims
to
the
against
The
had
failed
to
state
Ojaniit
or
Officer
Esposito
a
on
14
1983
which
claim
relief
against
can
be
Officer
granted.
Accordingly,
the
court
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.
against
Officer
Ledford,
the
district
court
similarly
and
we
possess
jurisdiction
pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
II.
A.
We begin with Masseys attempt to revive his claims against
Officer Ledford.
the district court that he did not object to the Report insofar
15
can
appeal
Ledfords
the
favor.
district
Our
courts
precedent,
entry
however,
of
is
judgment
replete
in
with
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 judges recommendations with
respect to Officer Ledford, because such review cannot cure the
failure
to
properly
and
timely
object.
The
Supreme
Courts
The
12(c)
threshold
motions
matter,
of
we
Officers
Ojaniit
address
Masseys
and
Esposito.
contention
As
that
the
Notably,
request
to
strike
the
officers
exhibits
or,
primary
reliance
on
grievance
the
1999
with
trial
respect
to
transcript
the
is
district
that
the
708 F.3d
12(d)).
Contrary
to
Masseys
assertion
of
error,
the
transcripts
presence
in
the
record
meant
that
certain
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
n.2.
Moreover,
authenticity
of
Massey
the
does
not
dispute
the
transcript;
rather,
he
31.
In these circumstances, we approve of the district courts
consideration of the 1999 trial transcript, as well as other
exhibits
to
the
officers
answers
and
Rule
12(c)
motions,
572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009) (In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6)
18
judgments
on
the
pleadings
to
Officers
Ojaniit
and
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 plaintiffs 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
Masseys
required
to
complaint
accept
as
all
true
and
are
not
obliged
to
accept
draw
all
well-pleaded
allegations
Nevertheless,
that
represent
19
In
applying
the
foregoing
standards,
the
complaint
will
See
and
Esposito
have
asserted
Because Officers
qualified
immunity
with
that
[the
officers]
deprived
must
account,
take
the
assessing
two-step
(1)
the
of
his
qualified
whether
him
immunity
facts
that
clearly
That is,
analysis
[Massey]
into
has
See Pearson v.
1.
The
1983
claim
in
Count
of
the
complaint
alleges
The
of
Fourteenth
liberty
Amendment
accomplished
protects
without
due
against
process
of
quotation
right
marks
not
to
omitted).
be
We
deprived
have
of
recognized
liberty
as
due
result
process
of
the
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
criminal
prosecution,
state
actor
would
violate
21
for
due
process
violation;
plaintiff
must
plead
and
fabrication.
subsequent
incarceration
resulted
from
the
of
Chicago,
prosecutors
indict,
856
decision
F.2d
to
prosecutors
985,
charge,
decision
994
(7th
grand
not
to
Cir.
jurys
drop
1988)
([A]
decision
charges
but
to
to
who
deliberately
supplied
Chalmers,
misleading
information
that
constitutional
torts,
like
their
common
law
the
portion
of
his
May
22
23,
1998
report
recording
We thus consider
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
the
jury
was
not
swayed
23
by
Masseys
short-hair
perhaps
because
it
thought
that
Wood
misremembered
put,
the
central
issue
at
trial
was
case
focused
on
the
not
whether
Rather, the
positive
in-court
The prosecutor
Officer
Espositos
report
only
after,
on
cross-
wore
braids.
At
most,
despite
the
trial
courts
In these
That is, it
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,
was
convictions.
but-for
or
proximate
cause
of
Masseys
favor on Count I.
b.
Turning
to
Masseys
Fourteenth
Amendment
claim
against
like
contends,
her
assailant.
influenced
the
That
decisions
misrepresentation,
of
the
Massey
prosecutor,
grand
disagree.
Even
assuming
that
Wood
did
not
truly
assailant at trial.
Ojaniit
any
mitigated
identification
by
confusion
accurately
about
presenting
25
Woods
Woods
words
initial
to
the
jury.
were
the
reasonably
foreseeable
result
of
the
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 evidences role in securing Masseys arrest
and continuing his prosecution. 6
Lambert v.
To state such a
by
probable
cause
and
[2]
that
the
criminal
Durham v.
Horner, 690 F.3d 183, 188 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
[N]otwithstanding the
27
Thus,
while
intervening
acts
of
other
participants
in
the
1994).
To
contravene
the
Constitution,
the
false
Md.,
475
F.3d
621,
628
(4th
Cir.
2007)
(alteration
determine
inaccuracies
materiality
and
then
by
excis[ing]
assessing
whether
the
the
offending
corrected
Furthermore,
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
omitted).
28
claim
falls
short.
Though
Massey
alleges
that
he
jurys
district
has
not
pleaded
probable
court
cause
determined,
facts
adequate
determination.
even
to
undercut
That
remov[ing]
is,
the
as
the
the
fabricated
to
exist[ed]
Officer
sufficient
Ojaniits
probable
written
cause
to
report,
arrest
there
Shawn
still
Massey.
Id. at 25.
We agree and
3.
According
complaint,
to
the
the
1983
officers
constitutional rights.
claim
conspired
in
to
Count
deprive
III
Massey
of
the
of
his
of
of
the
a
conspiracy
constitutional
which
resulted
right.
Hinkle
in
v.
City
has
constitutional
not
stated
right,
his
claim
Count
for
III
[the]
Because
deprivation
conspiracy
of
of
claim
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,
Masseys
and
conspiracy.
obstruction
of
The
justice
district
claim
in
court
reliance
dismissed
on
our
We therefore deemed it
Carolina
case
law
Id.
developed
Evans
was
decided.
other
state
law
claims
fail
under
the
same
To sustain a malicious
of probable cause.
(N.C.
Ct.
App.
1996).
As
previously
shown,
the
officers
North
Carolina
law.
Furthermore,
without
sufficiently
See
(N.C.
2008).
We
therefore
affirm
the
district
courts
31
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