Taylor v. Taylor et al, No. 3:2013cv00069 - Document 56 (S.D. Ga. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER granting 30 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's claim against Wammock are dismissed. Judgment shall be entered against the Plaintiff and this case is closed. Costs are taxed in favor of Deputy Taylor and Sheriff Sanders. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 7/29/15. (cmr)

Download PDF

Taylor v. Taylor et al Doc. 56 OR I6INAL rtL[0 U.5, DISIRICT COUfiT rir.ifiljsTA llv THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTITERNDISTRICT OF GEORGIA DUBLIN DIVISION IN 2015 29 Atllt: 39 JUL *CL SHERR]LYN TAYLOR, Plaintiff, * a\7 ?1i-n40 RICHARD TAYLOR ANd CLARENCE individuaf SANDERS, in their and LYNDA capacities, WAMMOCK / Defendants. ORDER Before f or set forth Factual is the motion herein, I. A. (Doc. no. s L r m m a r yj u d g m e n c . Taylor's ("Sheriff and Defendant Clarence Sanders' Taylor") rotion Defendant Richard the Court is 30. ) For ("Deputy Sanders") Lhe reasons GRjN{TED. BJACKGROUND History 1. The Compla-nts and TnvestlgaLion On September 18, ( " ! , i a n u n o c k " )c a I I e d Office Sherrilyn ("Sheriff's Taylor 2011, pro Lynda Wammock r h e l v l o n c g o m e r yC o u n L y ( G e o r g i a ) and office") complained had been making harassing Wammock's home threatening public. se Deiendant (Deputy Taylor to Dep., fight Ex. 6.) her that Sherif f 's Plaintiff te)ephone calls to she saw her in Plaintlff was if Although Dockets.Justia.c ^, .o1t lf iI hY ^ \ l L fram: hl nnkarl ( W a m m o c kD e p . a t Lr-*-^^l,r i{anlmocK S r - o n f i r m i nYc ,' rhai h' rJ} i r r a r v i a u r i .n a t - r - e sf r-al I s hl or-kcd r-elephone, and interviewing 4 1 , - 4 4 .) decided not denred Plaintiff to seek [ r ] . a m r n r rr.e n o r t e d k bitch." rl-ri e (Id. ca.-.\n.l erd ^nnf'-r r v-- o. m Jn l a i n l - l - ' , u L P+ r (Id. Taylor convenrence slore Sanders of for arrest to for meeting, warrants. 11-39.1and and Deputy TayLor (Id. your terloristic her meet (Defs. Mot. for her home ac her at a Locaf second comp.La.int. aL 6I-64. ) Sheriff djscretion threats investigated Plaintiff lnformed Deputy Taylor tel eDhone catls later, house down Warunock at finding this prepared days Three Sheriff intent to appfy of the case and of his r'o use his Deputy TayIor harassino 1l-37. the the status DepuLy Taylor (Id. ) ro discuss Dep. at cal Is appeared on Wammock's to arranged home had continued and that io'^'i nn Not 59.) at -- Deputy Taylor *-^.r, i^o 'LaL more blocked Deputy Prior -a-i invest.igated hlarnrnock's gonna burn 9.) years. (Deputy Taylor 's calls "I'm Plaintiff's twenty on warrant. arrest 5B-59 & Ex. at anne4.ecl allegations f hat Plaintiff hone relephone. home, an had thr:eatened, Plaintiff for Lrrd : - - ' |-u u , a ' lrru 1 Plaintiff. the zed Deputy TayIor 1A-11. ) 25-26, - ^O ^ I I p hd I I I L C - Il1iI - uv,L!tlru, I^tFmrno.:k rer:ocJni had known each other because they voice nnml-\Fr Sanders permitted regarding afI idavirs for Lhe warranLs. arrest warrants violation of O.C.G.A. S 16- in violation of o.C.G.A. S 16- in Summ. J., Exs. F & G.) The magistrate in,rnd nrolr.,rhl a Dl.infiff'c -arrqp and nrrhlir o r'l trrn 2. i f F af q f'rrrl aL rhe nAnrrl- r - l - . 1 ' "r m 1-.\ nr nan Plaintiff of warrants had issued been qF 104. ) .rnr.{ ho.:m,5 voiced rheir irrAqr for Plaintiff' ar.'rnmFnl nr r ^r:r'l.L+ rIr" ' s r cr r dwdyr pl,ainriff I _:_ll: - l I, \ . : lL the car ? Fw \ A Tavlor ancl mofioned as.if I r /1. pl>ini ^ s - l^e F - F - r i Ln ,, rr L Y q!L! i- F-f f e ^ a n 6 r a l' ;f 9Lrrv 'r:\,1^r /Td rral lrar-1,- '^ r - n .m rn*:-n - n " - r r 5-. --- . .i f lor.{ :t ii rrdc rt- nF gR \ f ha (Id. ) Sheriff's The Office ..}ri --- \7 'l.errl nr then processing. ihon to ^t^ 'l^r^ne Ar,'a\r dr:hhp^ l--rl him. -h^ and from r - r or-:r-,irn ^ y Fr-)n hcr lf Deputy Lroub.l e srill qr Frrnod n r - r nr - r - r m nI i a n r : c nan,il with to confront ^tSSible rfdrrrLrrr. \j!fl:l officers for -. ^+ri^6r< upper arms and sl afimed her into cars. \/.j,rn- in F ''l \,^r,-.t him to remain in the vehicle of convincing effect desired v! .r:r/l^r n6nr,r\7 ca\/'-r. 1 attempt r^lisnrrn-rad the vehicfe to exit (Deputy she had arrived wich DepuLy Taylor's 1 that again denied lhe ma]e in tne back seat of the car made eye contacl , !-:l: and arrest. I I-l \/F in 1?-'1 q s PlainLLff Al friends dissaLisfacLion r Deputy layIor sLore. Wamnock's new alleqtations 58, 98-99 & Ex. 7.) Dep. at :1,a/r:iinnc rT..] 'l'r rrl ar \/ pany hlrn to meet and ^l convenience informed LecL f-v' - i n h--t 1 n 9 f The Arrest Upon arrival Taylor (Id. ) Aware of far Ft aar /nan,ii\i WarlantS. the rcn|r:rinn l-1a-L-rrn plrint f,rr6c1- iSSUed T)Fn r1-\/ hrr rhc Lhe side o[ one of the patro] brought (Id., Pfaintiff Ex. 11.) to During the the r,]riva Dl:ih1-i t€.ar rr^^^ the I Ar arrest l - \ ' l^ ^ . ] ,.,-- officer 1T^ i^ f F rclzori ra\riaur to thom n6rt,ir I fT ,' - i r u t - \ " '1 h.^lz-,1n p:fhor \ T-i\/l and provjded qf-qR rhrn speak wiLh nAhrlt\r Plainriff :l f to nffi.a rT'-l \/ T.rr'l^r'e trw Plaintiff Choriffte warrants nf ind I I advised th6 nno nlf inore :ncur<'ri nn Depuly Taylor. ^r c4 tha her an opporlunjty l The same day, pursuanL Lo an agreement berween Monrgome.ry -^rrni\r T?L'in a^r1hi-\r n6^ -*\^?i. Fn.l :r a.'rrr-r/ n AL - A r L * v r ' i / 1 n ur iL- ht )i R6-R7 I governs housjng r6l na rt Tha a\r,anf a.hi6r fpl \-r. , ^.rra6mani and har r . . ,c : rranSlerled ^r')4. n 6 ^J . uur hraan mainLenance fha r\^/.1 .-^rrnl- the r-',1-rayrw! n-6''r" LrsIJuLy iFq whi provides -nmates/ of to r-h in ' T 5 . T R A N S P O R T AL O N : I r w i n M^nr !rv,, i f r Pl:i-j- .l.\mar\/ s9vrLLU! ), a/-\rrn' \/ CounLy shafl i nm:l aq f rnm transport I hc the M.\nr! .r.\mFr\r rJv'r Yvr!'!r J r-.\irni\/ I:i l nr :n\z ^t hcr f:r-il irrr hnrrq ino inm:teq a-r \,4..i.-rl_,mar\/ f:o t,)-\/ A^.1 .le_ i\/eIhem IO Lne II.Win In addjLion, Counry DeLention Center. ido q Y ! ! ! g L v I J ! v v :ll crrl_rqc.rrranl Irw.n Councy f ranqnr-)rr:rinn f or {^- l"tf v' s :nnaf es *n an.l f f om Che Ifw in M.\n-.r..ror\/ corniv Deteniion when the attendance of such Center ' rrafes reaJrrire.l for anrz 'rrdir-iaL is medical or nr^-aa.l lcl^a-i f f :c S.rn.lFrc / Pl Dan 6.1 l-\\/ M^nl-^/1mar\7 nlF .n u y Plaincilf Center, l ^r n . t inn Fv !^ r received F.v 1 - \ ? \ II^^^ -rriVal medical care for A -:-l i-\'lnni -: | or abnormal iry. hor n Dl:inl-if during hrnri f ;n:in .re "nnrm.el cnrrrrht her arresL. {P]. (14 fnr \ On aL Ihe DelenLiOn her brujsed -onSultation no f.racLures, no dislocacjon r!nhl- r'^,,n1 \/ revealed and characrerized aonramhor in-irrriae .righr ?? rlloncdlrr St.atement oI MaLeriaI facLs, ?n1T cl,<arl Ex. 5. ) She was diagnosed - -^hi-rreinnc 'l-inla ILUrL!|Jtr an hor rinhr hand and pain fractures, obvious poss.ibf e. rinhr her chest side of on her righL a splint observed The clinician a need for hand' x-rays as no soon as (Id. ) Hold tirne of At the ' l i ar noted but The Parole 3. (1d. ) medication. :nd left (Id. ) The LreatmenL plan included w a I - I. right on h:nd on the her Faro:rm trauma and a contusion upper eyelid, a: blunt with f L o vl , r tn - - her nrr a r r-rh , 9 cr. n ! s-a l\ pf l ! nLFPn J . r a -r u for an was on parofe Pfaintiff arrest. ^^ E- ?v6r : J Mot, t<:.Lr for Sumn . the conditions of her paroLe/ the State Board of Pardons and Paroles issued, on the J., a warrant and order for date of her arrest, for parole (Defs. Mot. for violation. Dep. Taylor violated Because her arrest Ex. f,) aL this viofator 91. ) warrant That subj ect circumstances. " (Defs. Mot. for arrested Taylor Office Sherlff's parole Dep. at for hold 42.) before and informed Due to case rather a Magistrate. Sheriff's ho1d, Sheriff After Deputy called that staff (Sheriff the a Sanders Sanders waited MonLgomery Counly Lo set Ehan prompLly (Id. ) officer on Plaintiff. t.he parole CourL of Ex. I.) t ^ any under bondabfe paroLe the ^^-^ staces S u m m .J . , a had been placed che Superior PIainr- Lff's Plaintiff, D e p u ty Ex. T.; S u m r n .J . ' not is arrest Pfaintiff's presenl inq bond .in Plarnt i ft and Release 4. Detention Court of Monrgomery On Seplember 3A, 2A17, Lhe Superjor CounLy ser a sl5,000.00 Ex. 5. ) Ocrober z u q nrand irrrr,' yLuttv (PI. ) rr.f in Ex. 7.) Facts, .rrF r^r:c a pl ",ti 12, Lhe r\^rFnr\,r-anF r ^uL \ qr ql !A r v ' vl ah a on on bond. f-r ^intiff'S v!v!Y4e, CaSe far Fl vt j befOre rar].."iqri^ (Pf . Statement of Material phone cal1s. The grand jury ner-l e1- -:la '..c'^ av/q' rl rre,j n - r / v / J he;:rinn family her r'lol:i m;,1i p"l hond counseL On Oclober to nraq6-f F- and harassing threats haf M-nt Ltl JuLt hrnrrahF i f f : 6.) Plaintiff pl:inr Thira through hnlr'l Ex. . ( D 1, D e p , Plainr.iff Pfaintiff C.rrrrf v ! Dep., released hainn .ti <r i ha i v q l / v r trw rrilh^rrtw )A1) Crrnori.ir Office na^ r o ly rr r r < ' v .rha 2011. 18, Sheriff's /Dl 6, rhar bond for 2017, October On ronrracrari oroperry returned a "no-b111." (Id.) 5. Medi-cal Treatment On October L3, she sought released, rn^ made f-:-t -,' hcr when regarding nedication with rp (Id., rinh- was prescribeo orrhopedLc srafl for On November 9, 20IT, .^m^lrininn her arrest. nF n.ein (Id.) h.end h '" further Plaintiff of lrl at X-rays no (Id. ) Pain returned her right a waS given qno Lower determLndtion problems. initrriaq the was revealed occurred. and insLructions f a l Al-a,.1 X-rays Ex. 5.) fracture the Plaintiff after medicaL treatment further Oconee Cofiununity Hospital. haa day 201-L, one Lo follow up (Id. ) to the hospital cuqf^ined hand, wrist ri rrincr and elbow fracture showed a spiral prescribed four to against and denial of q.r\/ (1) for malicious On October Shc-'Ff slaf e law claims All -l-eimc:oainql 2, a motion for 2AIA, npnlrr\/ Deputy Taylor consent T.\/lor individual s u m r n a r yj u d g m e n t . PlainL i If's The Court extend the reply 5, 2015. morion then granted all Iaw, false ancl an answer to Sheriff capaciLies only. Sanders (Doc. no. 30. ) The Court Lo extend Lhe response consent dead-Iine from r"ovember 2I, (Doc. no. al-legarions, Lhe for and Sheriff Defendants' (Doc. no' motion to 2414' Lo December 54.) D e f e n d a n L W a m m o c k ,w h o i s fifed (3) In Sanders. deadLine from October 21, 20L4, to November 4, 2AI4. 46.) and Depury TayIor; againsL : " q , ' / \a l ' e o e r l in a compfaint (2) excessive use of force Defendants; Sanders are aqainsL Lhem in their graored for a Ll Defendants ano assau lL and bat Lery aga insr T:\/'l.-\r filed filed f983 S :oa'ncl P'ainri,- nahrrt \/ U. S.C. due process againsr UcvuL)/IayIv! all liahilifr, arresr Plaintiff 2013, 42 under prosecution r-rrnlair-- to wear a splinL l{istory On September 19. Court was Plaintiff (Id. ) s.ix weeks. elnar\/i (Id.) hand. pain med;cation and instrucLed B. Plocedulal this her of Pl,aintif f 's sLat€s that and requesLs rhaL aII not represenced complaint by counsel, in which she denies she was not accing Jnder color claims of agarnsL her be summarily dren'c<a.l ^. /n.- \ o cLa h-c filed motion a for i 11ddm.'1.'r II . DISCUSSION Summary ,fudgment A. q, rnn: .a^ , ..-,-..- rL is lcd l-o appropriate i rr'-lnmor , .l : enn-p 'i nF 9 ! l l g l r l L v l J I J q ! v cn]-if rv Standard f. ^q irrdomenl- ar\r aS a 56(a) . Facts are "materiaf" of the U.S. Macsushira E.ec. in inferences Anl The moving party by reference notion. r-:rnr How to -his 1115 (11t' Cir. nro.'- at tsria Zenith draw U.S. rhe *^-'.-i m:!' o- Citv When the 475 justifiable Real Parce.Ls of h^n-) burden ol 417 U.S. Cat.rett, v. Radio Corp., lFn on ffIe, -iFnF-'lq The Court must linfernal . has che iniLial v. the outcome "aLl Eour 'aa-l omitred) hrrrdc- 1993). . v. P. Civ. to r'he non-moving must and R. is Law. Anderson v. Co. v. Fitzpatrick at trial. Fed. substantive Lo materials Corp. Celotex law." no mOvanf the they could affect 1A-11 l-1rarr .r raLions and of is "there and most favorable favor. " Iits] F 2,1 1A)g nrrr.-l ||Al-io^ :ourt, if Indus. (1986), 587 5 14 , Dr^h matter f:.L 477 U.S. 242, 248 (I956). Lobbv, Inc., view Lhe facLs in rhe lighr partV, a I under the governing suit Lrbertv -:fo-i Lf only showing che tne basis 3 I ' 1, r.rhn ha^.s of Atlanta, 323 I.he for the 1 L 9 8 6 ). burden of 2 F.3d Lt12, non-movant has the burden of ^:rr,' ' h6 i.nitial burden in one two ways - of necessary to the non-movant's a fact Corp. v. is v. of Co.Lumbus 12A F.3d 248, / A cannot meet the burden at t.lo aI: If the : ' LJ e naa:r "caq may finol precludes lh.^ -p<n^*qe L i nn that .. burden. : u r-' of law. fact Jones 1997) (per non-movant the lnsufficient ' CLark, 1-ha lf mt L a Lr Lo! !r i : L ,U 929 initiaf burden, by only there is indeed a materia.L issue of fact a' rr::' mo-rrnrl hrz -hc whi ^h f >rr lhc non-movant When the Id. rhe movant presents ' its judgment sunmary avoid nrcr'' non-movant il-e mOVanL rnuSC f ailOr Ca f r Led iCS evidence afIirmarively n.rn-m-\/a'1r ttmrrql rFsb-n.l u/i rh "rY evldence sufficient trial is summary judgment. " htrrden !erPvrir iniLia-I of materiaf that - the movant carries - and only if ".lcm.nqir.t ^A.trc triaf burden bud. non-movant that initial 254 (l,l-th Cir. statement concfusory mere musr ic opposiLion, to judgment as a matter entitLed it cur.iam) in are no genu.ine lssues there and that City Before the Court can whether the movant has met its consider showing that of response che non-movanL's evafuate 144 (1970) and Celotex 41'1 U.S. 317 (1986)). Catrett, Coats 1997) (explaining Cir. 398 U.S. S.H. Kress e Co., Adickes v. first case. See Clark v. rnc. , 929 F.2d 604, 605-08 (ll'r & cIark, non- the is no evidence to prove case or by showing Lhar there Tovant's efemenL of an essential by negating on the marer ial to wlthstand facl a directed verdict motion at s o u g h t L o b e n e g at e d . " ! : ! z p c - L s f - s ! . 2 E.3d at 1116. If fact, a material movant or nn lho ^16:.li +ha hrr nnmnl:int orridonri:rrr ::!! 1981). Cir, rono:r q6a 'L. ics inn nnnnlrrcnrt, M^rri< \7 l-.ll:-=-+--.1--:f---- Rather, R^cc rl AA? al- tria.L Al provided by ).t non-movant the evidence I' laarf tr bv motion i r-ian.!/ burden the ignored" addil-lonal verdict riof carry or as otherwise affidavits with a directed Tne non-movanc cannot show that was "overl-ooked or forward "come .al lorrocl e.ither non-movant must withstand to sufficient hrcarl the contaj-ns evidence that record the the movant shows an absence of ev.idence on l,-l 11Tl on relying i^ne Lhe /^/-\rrta ina.l 1n?? 1n?1--1/ must in 111! wrth respond by FederaL Rufe of Civif Procedure 56 and Locaf Rule 56,1, The r-laz m.1ri,,-rn fr-rr lr h:c divah crrmmerrr Ihe irrdomenr Lo f i.le af{ idavics Lhe right nnn-mnrrinn enal rhc e2\ R?2fnr 'c fi requiremencs t1-r: linrr - ino ei-. mef For lqqc\ cri.el< r-nrcrdcr2 B. Plaintiff's PlAinr malicious rlrrA nr.r-aqa in LLt )e iff qrrTnmnr\/ itrelnment rsvYrrrvrr! J (Doc. no. 31.) v. Griffirh rt-les- of 1.Ar .,-r^nl nnnoqiii6n L ara h^q vt/t/vJ Therefor:e, WainwriqhL | 561j5fied. e)1nr 112 F.20 The r-1.1 -l_F -ar"l time m^l- i._ s 1983 Claims Under 42 U. hrinne ,,ea IhF 1i6n. € prosecuLion, an.l of nnri.Fr.lf or aLhe-rrnaLerials jn opposit ion, and of the consequences of defauft. the norice n:rrrr l qe? nl: againsL nf cvr-occi i m< rn.ain<r alf Deputy TayIor \/O 10 f^r.c' :nr-l Defendants for viol aLion .aarinef Shori for of f f q:h.lare fnr <rnorrzi cnrt; /s iff -rr cl Scr-r r nn unoer " 9Rj of civil a tne maficious Trnlrunity 4oar "rsr- pn\/ remedv r .\ . Pr!Jv.' l-hF or nanri Lo be causes rr:ri,.\n .rF an\/ 1983 1s not itseff f a-.lor: | but merely provides rights. subsLanrive i nn nF-so'r or immuniLies secured by the Constitutjon " 42 U.S.C. S 1983. Section ,'i n.tr ^:* f F chey are Lhat of 1aw "sub_ecrs, staLe o,ry and Laws f^r qhFri :n^ Tr" nr/'1 sa Wammock'S answer to ^-'^:aI nrovides color e source of \/lrlr 1983 Framework and Qualified privileges. righrs, l r i m Section -..F.r^^-^n 5 urJ l sr- Lsr], nanrrF\,' vvrLLP- i nn l. v .:omn ain' J -r^<a-rrf who, 'rnrrr.'1-v- r.r rr-at'Tieci ola'rf I it sumlrary judgmenc and argue Sanders move for orri-lo.l I i.eni -iahr-c car^rh,--a e Conlerred, a merhod v. GIaham Connor, 490 U.S. 3B6, 393-9A (1989). immunLLy Qualified government Lheir or consti Lutional have known." 2OO2) L[u'Lur]rLy situation clearly v. Harlow WiIson, v. A 1aw enforcement -Lr which of 31I F.3d 1340, 451 is entitled reasn"')ah e !ruJe.'u'-L that constiLutional 11 his officer for if capac'ties ished a reasonable officer couLd have believed" esLablisheo establ fi tzqe-ra]d, ^ u r - r - l l' vr e- r v e proLection indivjdual clearly vjolate .righLS Vinyard (quocinq 11982)1. not "does complere rhe rr in sued officjals conducL offers staLuto.ry person would 7345 (1 1r Cir. U. S. to 800, qualified .Ln Ine conduct violated righL. Td. 818 Same no Qualified immunity from s"rit is r., -..r-\? ^r't I lj:hi I crrir: h)rl- violatinq 'l I 1/ q 1 r : lirr; i -h 'o i g nlainlrr law." l ri, nL lr -r aq -r ' r a l \ , ! r C o u . rt s u L i f i z e alrim< :nn<- a--cca HoDe v. if Fr'rF- -r Ldr1 esr,rhlish a arraryJrr y appropriate rrne for ^! ^ l, u ^ tr:-3 ]l r s u r .d L rLLoy :- ,.,t-^ LD in Lhe case. urncr marks hor and l-nF r:ons1-ituL Anorher -^'-Lr test i--,-.-,. flu'Lurrf whatever Pearson v. r.--r.,innr\l Nrruwarrvry ons qualif ieo rn^ Saucjer is is CaIIahan, v. whether Sa rcier- t :9_:I==:.: rhie order Ffrs violation. jnquiry " ciratj must be present Ly/ f r.rm nlainti ional ishe.l cDLot, in- of 284 E.3d 1188, t36 (2AA2) (ciL;ng 730, wd5 t ^ ,- 5 c r( a LU r-- j nr.]f Ferraro, ic U.S. at 201. Both efements of this ^rr: urlrl ^h^ .r'rc-ar ro.] 194, 201 (2001)). rvz v - u ^ lfgF d rir lL 11r Lee v. ina,rirrr Pelzer_, 535 U.S. rinhl- i..'Jn fear Ihe a Lw o - p a r L f r a m e w o r k t o e v a l u a t e 6no KaLz, 533 U.S. iha i n rrL- vn- m rn !e r e n t Lr .. , l-!ut.,'l wit,hour - iri^-r F-----iaa n* )ftat2\ / r ai- imm'rnitrr . l i s r -- e r i o n a r r r c l - r i c s federaf the l rl l \ - fLoi gove rnment ofl icials inrended Lo "allow for 533 an r u r n _ n r n n nvar d . r - u efrv t-i deemed most 555 U.5.223, 2 4 ) . ( 2 A A 9 ). 2. Pfaintiff's S 1983 Claim Against Maliclous Prosecut ion In Count Defendants for contends that and, rherefore. I, Plainciff malicious brings prosecution a from unreasonable her [ourtn seizures. against cause to arrest A m e n C m e n rr i g h L To establish L2 clair Defendants for all under S 1983. PLaintiff Defendants lacked probable v-ofaled Af1 her Lo be free a S 1983 malicious i^PI (r-EUuLr\r'r nlrim lL "hso - nl i r y L:q n rr ri L ! f f mttqi the elements of the conmon law tort sei zures. 618 ^ lrv^r aea ^ r u r r j - i ^ n y l uL-r r-l: need officer im rlzanl such \, - h: rrdc those cases liable. wiff fact pattern. Id. li arrest rhe arresLing for for of not the _L> be to 1aw that reasonably but P! srErrL, held personally probabl e and the crime alleged probable cause' every eLement of the crime. immunity will arrested (1) terroristic threats 13 the cause existed had a rquab-Le probable qualified same as k n o w Je o g e Showing arguable Taylor Deputy the inevitable i^F tqp onfy probabfe possesses arguable proving officer any offense, Here, warrants ^ should Id. however, does not require is Ar but ln some cases in elements cause depends on the operative it ra'_v- "Arguable probabfe that lrihether an officer Td. same Lhe maflcious cause/ offlcers che nrnhah officials i'r- aL'l 257, Indeed, officiaLs /_^n.- oua Ii'rad rre reasonab.Le Id. 1983 a probable possessing plaintiff. enforcement mi cr recei could have believed defendants C o n s e q . r e n tl y , S defeats caLrse. Id. and cj rcLmsrances to be free Auburn. Ala.' of City 2010). actual where exists arrest Tcr have not nrohahle "^./'r'ahle" cause// T.l +!-j- v. Clr. probab.Le cause of existence (rr,." 1256 1 2 4 0, F. 3d prosecution; of maflcious Grider 1- ) tr-.in.-s. of her Fourth Amendmentright and (2) a violation from unreasonabfe rur^ nr-\,a Plaintiff cause to apply. Id. pursuant and (2) harassing 1]o phone ca.Lls. "A person cornmits the offense when he or . . . r+ r - . - Lr . o r ! L /rr e-a-a-^ S fhe iFf,c cL o. ..arls i-o the time ri At n^^r,rt' hrr rho : i l a a! o !rvi ' Y of n- ar-crl T^ he sought hrrl fi lh6 call time. PlainLiff's nirrar r^7rmm^^l/ s threat to burn for rrnarrnr nF innl,rriarl down Wammock's al Lhough Lhe call rhar, n,rmho :n urhirh r cha This lcd - ^ m n tl / - u - ^ -vr.t j i . t . L -. n a n ,, u lL y Det , T - "y1t - t ta e " hrr harassing compLaint lalammnrk was r 6 r v Y r^r ; 2 d ^ ^^ r L u! rri .-r i m'c Plaintiff and h^ma rhrFF phone calls davq c:rl ^^-4i 4vv l-al complainL, anh.'na that thaL she she did not was make the arrested ncrs.n be .:onvicted testimony the reoarrlino of under this the party I4 to subsection whom the a:Ieged so-Lely t e s L i m o n y . S e c t r o n 1 6 - 11 - 3 7 p r o v i d e s uncorroborated Lhe appeared on rhe uncorroborated shal l rr-.1 Lo physically that of with ier and threau Lhe invesrigation insists argues r consistent Deputy Taylor had confi rmed thaL blocked ca lls Lhrear O.C.G.A. a p p e a r e d o n l i l a n u n o c k ' sp h o n e d u r i n g harm Wanmock. During : I I onorl Ieckless warrant the hoon im l-.I nnlzarl o- voice beca:se they had known each oLher f o.r LWenty Lhar a blocked r-^mnlainl . in " . I e-ror DepJry faylor f :om ^^rr^l1^rrra relevant s.r.h rvl i e r Plaintiff/ !{ammock informed haa'l e^a. hcr T:r/'l.\. v l } J q t j dav ancl time v. fe--^r,z,r1 r r r o Lc! Jrt r PlainLjFf's yso' I ha innir{ant house. had r-r threat to commit any crime of violence ^r Ire 16-11-37 (a) . Dlrint rha she threatens of a terroristic on Lha: : "No on threat the 1s The United communicated. " Circuit Eleventh :he of fense, Cir. ^nr4-nrf ! , , 1 IiI j a m s v . In 2010). i aLL!'LLPU+r'y -i r-: r An al legaL i ons. tne the plaint invesrioaLor, ln iIf fail ed invescigaror compJaint. driver's his received . . r .d . nroe . Le- r o. C' rcuir affirmed ( r: va Y r .e o : n u ! - at s i.r^t^r S ,,,:< - - ^ g u - r .f ^ r ^ ,, au s mha who waS ,:rrpql aga . nsc suir lhere warrants the was and that Lhe corroborate had investigator irnnrr6;-1 1 son the plaintiff's to the alleged witness 6 - ^vr! , -! f- r - r ^ d s diSIr CO rhe aaLSe. jCC Eleventh The coJrt' s j udgment and noled Lhat - o . - r r r jr e m e n t o'r'.lerr-o SLate, provide nf ^naa6[6;aL r^rhi/-h fa..le as aIleged. ") 15 but rn not iS a 300 Ga, App. 395, 398 may .1 r^nitrm f be suf f .LcienL evidence, a\r'r don^c che her , TI _ 1 r ^ i n a a l a] ia rhar arrest P' see Geler v. der,^c 1 9 83 tnaL circurnstances cvi i-,.lFna..lanr occurreo - oi irre ^^rr^hnrAiinn ^a a "l..r--6]-6-31 (2009) ("Sliqht in itsel i nrrcer from a direct the disrricc one. -kL; srringent driver sufficier.Lly Iact vi ^i- j* tl^F r-n,rrtrs to The information 'rFma \7 - ^.i.rc. a r .\!\rtruck the q!Ysuv!! rhe an 608, 610 and arqued inter ^ ^ : r n , , : l - r l o n r n l - r r h ra C a u s e f o r rrv the be to plainriff the of S L6-LL-31 , despite for violations denia-L of for Appeals 391 F. App'x. TayIor-lee , WiLl iams, acc warrants of provision this eoecll,z -l-reatare. erl an.J a .rramnl- interprets Court requiremenr wh-ich does noL cnange the el emenrs oI evidentiary (l I' States need only nrOVe that suffrcient iOn need be rhaL the nOt amount inCident Here, cnmn : t4tr6 u l ri nl ^ .L.9t v u in like f rnm .an : hn-h ' iha nrnh:hlc elements R6^.,,ea arrest 610 at '\., ^rFcnea ne'rha- $/hi,-h there of Lhe wronq Lis i s no nrobab.Ie Sunmary judgment Plaintiff's As for a9drrrr iff's she was not rhe 1n favor of S 1983 malicious these "'--nmock asks r-o-nla:"rt acting t.. the q rnrrp-r -.r under color r6 of her arrest fOr a faw. for announcement is Deputy immunicy. GRANTEDon c.Laim. prosecution Court nicniSs is CerLain offense an Lo qualiIied Defendants 391 E. which ar.resr, Therefore, S 1983 malicious Plaintiff's irnmaterial for vet baf prosecutlon rhla satisfied is it on arrest). Sanders are entitled L D'arrf viriates offense .ernr pl,ainriff'c arres! his nor Under See Wi-l-liams , rclianr-g ! u rr statute, existed f ^ r-e".o cause cause. crrnnnrrcd makes an L Nonecheless, estlt'v also errnian-r'ra 9 d h:d tht:eats f hp i - t, . ^ -s- i J -L. r- a n ^ L I v conduct S 16-1 7-39 .1. l-.,/ n-.1-.enl o rhrear r T:\/l^r of O.C,G.A. S 15-11-37. !-l Taylor and Sherjfi \/ ess-v P!vvuv4e (when an officer c , r - ) . ^ r t Au,vl L ^^ -F-r Plaintiff's terroristic O.C.G.A. in evidence. nan,,r a -or:ahl e orobabl e cause of qr I orr.ri received €orrnrl n-obabl e nrnh:hl ! : I I^ rF .o1 ^ v r r J . \ n e Y L- - i that Georgia's rrarr>hla of ih.el- believe qr9us!, violation App'x. im corroboraLive finr]< violatj-on for "rhe-hor for fn of : Taylor: Deputy na.rr s- rar e -^,rrt .Ansp rri rr I h o thin : latilli:mc the I lanari ,.toniclrl u9y-!JJJ- o^ :dm'-ra,-l i - Wilfiams, in the her claim answer to claim A successful because S 1983 was connnitted by a person acting under cofor (2) of the deprived Harvev States. 1992) (citing v. Harvev, Flaqq L56-57 (1978)). Inc. privileges, at or .Iaws of the United II21 , v. (11' If29 I49, of law, and under color prosecution Cir. 436 U.S. Brooks, Wanrftock as not acting w malicious faw and of state rights. F.2d 949 Brothers. Pfaintiff's therefore is complai-nant secured by the Constitution immunities (1) the conducr compla ined of a showinq rhat requires acLion claim against her DISMISSED. in Hls 3. Plaintiff's S 1983 Clalm Against Deputy Taylor Capaclty for Use of Excessive Force Individuaf in Taylor PIainc i if Counc 5, In his individual PLaintiff's Curing brings for capacity use of vlofation in arrest cl a im a againsL Deputy excessive force Fourth the of Amendment. The Fourth Amendment's freedom from unreasonable seat:ches encompasses the plain and seizures use of excessive force right 1n the course of an arrest. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340. 1341 (l-1'h Cir. whether the light v. officer's of the facts is conduct confronting on reasonable vision of a case-by-case officer hinosighr. on the objectively the officer, basis from scene/ rather Td. Fourth T1 Vlnvard v. 2002). The question Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-91 (1989)). judged from the to be free Id. reasonable (citing Use of force the is Graham must be perspective than with in of a t]ne 2A/24 A m e n d m e n Lj u r i s p r u d e n c e has . hat " €,^^t1^i 1r:d ! ! ! v Y r r 4 - ! v i n ,' a < | i ^ : | . \ r \ 7 '-q6 qrr.\n qnr'ra dF.rrtrF 284 a judge's chambers, violares 49A U.S. at omltted) . While some force r oLn 4 -r fi r o c r . r ! a r-arc'f -ha :^::rqu9u!rrJ c arr'lor rn h: arrest l -anr-o c a I J j ll rh! + g ' , . Y - " r c o.\/ersmr'6' must evaluate :r-t an ir;clrr ree v. push or marks is thus a eflect Amendment o u ua l i t r r u Y of rhe Amendment interests al inte]:estS in aC Stake." marks omitted) . Graham estabfished nf rrqino arrestee/ s several to Fourth e .n u u -d quotation qome fnrce constitutionaf including factors, "the whether the suspect poses an issue, to the salery Tertv quotation the noceqqirrr aqainst Cir. rne peace oi used Fourth rho (1lth an arrest 6r+,avc Supreme Court the crime at immedia t e r h r e a r uhal-hor u! 1197 (internaL States court of -r-^ ^r 'IV lrno to nht I /-.nnte-vai The United ri under Lo thereof II91 and a^-^e tha j-.] Amendmenr" Craham, . effecting individual's Lee, 284 F.3d at in in Or rirrhj- Tndeedf "noc every reasonable h-'^-^i--u iha chreaL 1188, citation the on intrusion r'l iS .r iF alrest 396, and citing at r^rhcl he- qeizrrre n,ari-i-rrl:r L,il-h Lhe Fourth (interna.I "dF-Frn:1rrn aT seem unnecessary in may.]aLer 395 i^e F.3d (1958)). 22-21 it shove, even iI rr nAka .oFrcr.r Ferraro, I, 392 U.s. a--1we.l- -: Graham, 490 U.S. 2002)(quoting ohio, l\/ nhrrsr r-al v, Lee it. effect na-aee:ri nf r.\ r:flht rhe o-r orhers, of rhe ofiicers i er 1B inn :rroet /1r ^f l-ernnr inn and ro by fl,ight." evade arrest Id. 1197-98 (quoting at 395) . U.S. at In case, rhis a | [eges Plarntiff g rabbed her, slammed her into a paurol arms, and chesu waII, hand, The Court excessive. factors forth set in (a) Severity alleqation crimes. severe the severiuy that se of r-lc:rl\/ Fi^ r r _ 9 h rr -; h ^ . i - ! . lu,!, - i e -^ lrrv reduce that of the crimes complained of and findjng Lhe safeLy of others, the alleged r-nrr :rroel Thus, public of level used to residents the that Deputy f i r-ar nanrrr\/ under q a F o l - r . ' -l l c l y l T :erl r l i r vn r the and officer arrest Plaintiff. LY of threaL of arson the public PlaintiIf's nf Tndeo^ risk. force to nearby. Iive consideraL ions of rhe and others ih/ - L - i. i. lr- r r o r i I ha Craham factor, posed to officers nc,ses a t-hreat Lhose Lhat making t orce was excessrve. (b) Threat As for the denies Plaint,iff cir-ed in Lhe arresL warranLS weign against Tarrlr-'s was a person and burn down injure Nonethe.less, under Lhe first such Lhreats. Courc finos this Iorce uslng such using Graham. to physically home are her her heao, car brujsing of the crimes Threatening or cons.iders DepuLy Taylor that and Lhat his Graham, 490 r lrva ,e e Y ._ home and to reputation Ior o I trrFql e e'l Lr.:r-krrn second saleLy I o Graham factor, supporLed the (c) Resisting A lr h^,,,,-rh nrinr r.r ^r^taerriinnc :nd yLULTJ 't.t- r-nl- a-i attitude an demonstraced flannf \/ TA\/l.r fa\/or l.anrl-\/ h i rd Tavl or'-s ri nhl- tha : l l a n a| ^ s u s j conduct 'rr-- na^.,r' Tr\/'.1- on thi s c I a im ls forth he used to not did need not -his h.o r r r a^,,ni- nrnco.jrrra P-v-Luu l : The " zv lsa n r P, i rvL ,'lrrc n r . rv-va q J LJq I/- csrahl process of nFrqnn law." nl iffts m L y a rn i o' nvsr L J r)o L a in for Because her. constir-utionaf that whether at the l! r- rh a! - a ' ^ - ^ e! ej Deputy of Lime n'.-A^fc r sumrnay judgmenL rl I arroc rirrhrq h.\lt-e nr U,S. lifo Const. l-h:l- nrol state ?2 in Againsc Depury Taylor of Due ProceSS ncnrrf o' he'n.r \/ .\r r. r'Fc'll^' to bring her no state nay arrested. thaL 6rr\nar-\/ amend. XIV, 2A H.is rzi nl,eTerl -he failing provi oes :harl \/ T^\/l^r "J "-t' o r'l h.z 6al Iaw by Amendment Fou-rreenrh I/e a v. r) L sLeps Tavor of DepuLy i shed.' His roLion by - rrdno wr f hr r urr]/ her arrest violate immfnir\/ claim. i Ff AnendmenL as created l-6 f ^.a grrv GRNiITED , p]>int- ? -f determine Oufea l i f i e d Y v1r. pl^ Graham weigh in 4. PlaintjtI's S I983 Claim Tndirridrral C:nar:if v for Violation l^ -hF a v! faCtor. r.r:c "r-'oe-r,r r iohr rv z i ^ l - " l i ^ n -c force the a.rrrrl- r -n n s r i I I I t i o n a I ^- rv! and took which weighs in Craham set as fo f ha !r9rrL, Te.l \i ' l r her "" urDaglccalf factors Tarrlor's c e i T i-n r " r Y Jr^-^-^^-L-r f l-.- - rrtr the Aff .)dnrr-\/ 'nar l\, noncompliance, of creared an unsLable situation nn.lar fIighL s n e w a s a r g u m e n c a Li v e d u r i n g t h e e n c o u n t e r , convenience store. hrnleurrrd :(F Plainf --,.,vuYr- and/ar arresL r.rr S 1. r '. ri i ! It hnrr' ei,ee! is ri tc vg! well- carr la.l fhal n'r \/ provision. :1is /1qqql H e w jL L v . on other overruled riri-Fd a -an.re inr i-.tLeresLS Helms, 459 U.S. Sandin v. srounds, T.i Frarl-rr of aracrc (1983), 464, 466 Conner, r-rr.\ra.ia.l within Iall h\/ a12 515 U.S. iho F".-r r I a F n I l-r r \ J J J J 1 . from two sources - the Due Process Clause A m e n . l m e n tm a v a r i s e irsel f r^.r and the \' Sandin, 'f h.'mne.rn 515 of laws lqn U.S. rhe II q stares. AqA :rlo-es- hrr discreLion. A state I iri ic rloci -- 1c',hcr:nrirro l - . r r aJc r ruh lvir< rh ir n ra' Y r s r r + v)i ei nn ha m:ki -arnl^6^ :nn rr^t nn.n a U.S. at creates nreni.--ar f,,rr-^ar f ir-li-.r Its4t as' hrr rhtr on mrnd:rirn relevanr by ljbercy olf jCial 462 ("lTlhe a liberty l/'r , certain "under aCiOns KenLuckv Dept. of Corr..490 m o s t c o m m o nm a n n e r i n w h i c h a s t a l e !r may ua,^'i t r\' ]_t:-.:t_g:..9./ creaces a prorected q 1 1 l - 1 c - . a p 1: r 7 a jn.r nl:. (states / yg_::_!_+_1_1:i,- ^ artnl- i \ of inLeresLs wh.ich are prorecred c.Lrcumstances creaLe Iiberty Lhe Due Process CIause"). (1949\ , r rvl/ A6n 483-84 at KenLucky Dept. ld=; .r.\/arn interest nff t-ha ^f ir-i:l 1/1/-\ma Criteria have been met."). The statute state-created ^ ^c L)-Z9t ,.rr^F W t Lr L r l rel.ied fiberty -{--F^^ >LaLs- in upon by Pfaintiff interest was viofated r^lo\/:^r to assert that is O.C.G.A. S 17- na rr. arrest.inq under Every faw enforcement officer in a warrant sha.L.l exerc.ise reasonable diligence a i udicia-t the person arrested before bringing officer authorized to examine, commit, or receive and in any event Lo present: the person ball judicial a com,nitting officer: arrested before within 72 hours after arrest. 2I her protectable interest Liberry the 285 E. Supp. 2d L3I0, Burke Countv, ofF'cer to by failing take State v. Godfrey, violared arrestee 72 hours. refers to defendant muse be brought before places "specifically a judicial time "the ,:nrrc is of I i berr u! v inl more narrow Brewer, in c i ui zen is properly not 6-61-a^-a7-l case of the of officer." arresting the of observance 2 9 1- 9 8 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ( " R e v o c a t i o n o f p a r o l e in defendanr thus such che fu I I pcoceeding a v. See Morrisev "deprives which to liberry conditional of every paroLe special Lawrence, 213 Ga. 295, v. Wilfiams broad CLaUSe PTOCeSS revocation the only .rest.rictions" ) ; see also DUe liberty absolute on dependent and r he a parolee. but enLj t.l ed, prosecur lon hv 4BA (1912) (parole 408 U.S. 4'/It an individuaf, c eyFqt a Georgia law a magistrare"). burden on the this whrch within tsunyon, 285 F, Supp. 2d at 1323. Hovreverf the otherwise I qr'9c p99 officer); 204 Ga. App. 58, 59 \1992) (the 72 hour limit S 1 1- 4 - 2 6 O.C,G,A. (S.D. Ga. I32I due process rights arrestee's before States United in oeing broughr- be{ore a judge within ?nn3)'arresr'rr in a creares Due Process Clause of by the Consritution Bunvon v. provj sion this Generally. is not part pancply does not of a criminal of rights apply to due a parole revocations."). Plaintiff o.C.c.A. S on Bunvon to argue that relies I1 -4-26 is ineluctably 22 a a violatron viofatlon of the of Due ln Bunvon, the plaintiff Process Cfause. to ] r v J al , r -a h r -.r( -I ! na{nro _irr.l.re .i u liberty ur;rq United States judge in deni Here, warrant rer into not promptly Instead, her bond for before a eventuaffy set s r A j - r r j -. ) r \ / l-ime Plaintiff received narole a not took that -L^ -^^^^^ that was due to Plaintiff's estabtished" the is enLiLled for her- time of to qua-Lifieo the 23 hour Lhat Because right whether that right alLeged im,runity on sununary iudgment on thls GRANTED. 12 constitutional was at court That concludes fourL hold. the issue the after was Pfaintiff action. until ParJcu' the orocess cLaim. His motion and an Court to resofve further but t'-'r DepuLy Taylor order Deputy Taylor hours after the Court need not consider this before violator. to due process, violaLion. a to post ba.if on a issued Board taking bond, limi+ a the Superior Deputy Taylor did not viofate "clearly n.sl create a judqe because of her parole taken before he walted n: l-.? l- . brought being Sanders testifies Sheriff custody, not arrest Pfaintiff's for (1) Parole Georgia the --r statutes (2) being allowed Brrnrror wae in ^ y yn /! 1 n v v A"n u being Bunvon/ 285 F' Supp. 2d at 1323. However, misdemeanor charge." ff ed without days "Georgia's in Constitution, ?2 hours and in nl:inri twefve by the Due Process Cfause of the pt:otectable interest, of and JuJgs' This Court concluded that baiL. fhe for was detained warrant, a pursuant lras arrested clalm is Sanders 1n 5. Pfalntiff's S 1983 Cfaim Against Sherrff Hr s I n d i v i d u a - L C a p a c i t y f o r S u p e r v i s o r y L j a b i l i t y In Count against claim prai^ri"'s Plaintiff 6, (1) iors his racnF-L ll^'s are despite (3) was aware that Plaintiff judge a participated Taylor co wrire Taylor had, in and is did in was not brought (4) acts of hls subordinates arrest require despite fiable by knowing Lhat she not in che al-[egedly unconsLitutiona] parLicipaLed arrest incarceration; effect.ing only Sheriff chat unfawful reporL used force t t h e u n c o n s t - Lu t i o n a ] and Deputy knowing LhaL her arrest. under S 1983 for if he personafly conduct, or his connecued to rhe a I I eged consL i curional were causally Cam.pbeIly. Johnson, 586 F.3d 835, 840 (1l:n Cir. deprivatron. 2009) . The centra.L tenet Mann v. violation. f orce official A supervisory the (5) and a use of fact, three-week condoned Plaintiff; of imprisonment her during in capacity. individuaf and condoned Plaintiff's authorized had been injured; acrions i- liability a supervisory ( 2 ) r e f u s e d L o h e - L pP l a i n t i f f Taylor; before Sanders in Sheriff .lleoar Sanders allegres 1n both offenses Taser Intern, Inc., .is a constituti-onal 588 tr.3d L29L, 1308 (11'' Cir. 2008). As such, claims under a theory oI supervisory liability fail this case, Sheriff if the each of underlying Plaintiff's Sanders' motion for 1983 cLaim for supervisory S 1983 claims S 1983 cLaims faiI. fail. ld. Thus, summary judgment on Pfaintiff's liability is GRANTED. In S In srare of Iaw claims Ialse Deputy Tay-lor for assau.Lt and batLery. claims and Wannock seeks dismissal of the claim Deputy s Claim Against 1. Pfaintiffr Tndividuaf Capacity for faLse Arrest DFnlrl- \r cause. Deputy Taylor be sued for act injury v. art. Ga. 144, ma.Iice in Clr. fact. official (1994)). Baker' Adans v. of a fafse can show actual presentation in His r-rohahlc to offrcial employees funcLlons intent cause " Jordan 2 0 A 1) ( c i t i n g v. if only to functions. to Ga. Richa.rdson, requires malice" a of 504 F.3d 1331, 1339 (11'" Hazelwood, malice persona - animus coward the arresLee, knowlng of stace and Gilbert "Actual her. a Lo Co v'7rong nd denores express malice or In the context Ceorgia Ix(d)' Peterson v. 200?)(quoting (1999)), in 152-53 inrenrion leliberate par. S II, 1ar-V actual 4 8 1 E . 3 d 1 3 5 0 , 1 3 5 7 ( 1 - 1 ' hC i r . I/ Taylor entitled allows with in the performance of thelr Const. a discrecionary maLlce or actuaf r-n he is responds that performl nq rheir with Mosley, 264 hacorr t ' T h e z i ^ 1 - , - t1 a C O n S r i t u L i o n irrrrr'*rz they Ta\,,_.r against law cfaim of false a state alleges In Count 1, Plaintiff Deputy sunimary judgment on alf Sanders move for and Sheriff > 9 ui-n e J oar -r r DefendanLs, and alI against arrest Taylor :rrAel she brrngs S 1983 cfaims, Pfaintiff's to addition a c - l aj m a g a i n s t Law Claims State C. Plaintiff's perjured 25 arrest 271 Ga' clarm. by presencing 4L4t 4I4 a plaintiff evidence of manulaccured evidence. o.r testimony. Marshall v. 310 Ga. App. 64, 68 (2011) (police Browninq, act with warrants search when she proceeded mafice actual based Iarqelv quescion where evidence fn lto ^rrcql,ed LtFra :.ri i-h in Dl ri r h o! L-- of fron nl i f f 'olenhnn,- a.rrest nf s so officer Off.icer the that may have caused COUId cnnnodoc 'f:trlnr malice ,^'i for T:rrlnr'c fhe 'r".FF- hr-rr- warrants. of record wpre PLaintiff 'he L--- lad colLeCt nr r-^ cause for the arrest a arrest f ir-ic-g f6a the to fhat al leoecllv her unlawful arrest behest of Wannock who maintains r/ Tarr' n- end cheri f f Fu.rther, Sande.rS . 26 ha :nd a inf orrad l,1lammock's her on Lne home iSSUanCe that fact Of no Lhat probable Plaintiff waS carlied a close inn Pfaint i If. m:\r calls i n/! absent injure ii.a :.l- ri,uruL'!L)/ She argues rhal points was Iacking. 'nlr LLo! Lo m: L,re i nvoer fafse blocked insttf Tarrl ^ intent or nan,,r\/ il probabl e cause. of and anl Law claim r h^r 9s!J c ri J royru' nanrrr\., q u r , , , :9 rLy state . I' n ' r o c u rh:r inoicrmenL was obLained Lo supporL her position nar"r chifdren's 481 F.3d 1350, 1357-58 (11' showed rhar hr^ acLual che lack r-omnlainrs i f f n-a n L i t \ u J yu ,l Plaintiff/ showing nr <nn r e e ynLe Th,'c Dlri and arrest debt from the arrestee). civll on did not acted with actuaf malice was a jury 2 0 0 1) ( w h e t h e r o f f i c e r cusnF.t with on uncorroborated tesLimony),' see Jordan v. Moslev, Cir. detective frrendshrp inslsts out at with the both As for warrants ni the re rrmcr>rno< ln 1-r.rh .-Aqcq- ^orocr-i h:cp.l D o n - t-rl r r nn in\/esf q ,,rF,p n-r.la n!o r h :-n u t J J ! r s y m i q ro ls] ri u ue c l d u Y , : r o c gl r r! y Y rs, an unco. arrest the -'^r - - ig d L - L t J r L n.-rs the indictment, cier:i rant The WarrantS. LO i ..\ n S iOr from rqlra A rnrFr rant "(f -ae-irrar\/, -nLrn':-a.l 6q, ar concluded that Iater attorney ld, The {-,,rr Deputy TayIor's neither eere/ ^Ar 'vL P- Lv qFFkin.1 bur- the Courr that ur.:rrFn c n.1 r investiqate fhe :11-y'5 6r.:-l Plalntiff malice. cause, f inding Lhe maqistrate's in regard. m^<i pl:i and Sheriff conspiracy n . r ir - -f f : r . l Y lueJq | ! ur Sanders to rh':]t supporL, which it does not. iu misses the mark. theoryr and they Plaintiff, Even if it Lhis theory would be m /Vammock's alice .rather chan Deputy Taylor's r-^t : -,rr.o a!Yus -h^t urruL n6^' nan l^J.amm.).k o"lerF.l arrest ,/,/ith Wamnock's inst-ructions. -1.6c to thaL aL 61-69' of probable determination Ieaves undisturbed As for Plaintiff's at ^rrFc- on.rFq fLF 'r:'^risrrate's ^h^ not decision are evidence of actual of a no-bil-] return Id. was malicious. investigation facL the evidence did nor amounL Lo proDable cause fai-led t.o sway Lhe courr t.he detective's 'F 310 Ga. App. 54. malice cannot be inferred actual the distrlct that T u irtrv r r ' q r a ln hefd that rv reo r J c of lack the t o t h o s e i n M es g - b e ! ! , arreSf court Marshaff rha nf are simi1ar PLaintiff and lssued were upon whlch record factuaL thin an 27 -AV or complied had facr-uaI indicator m aI i c e . m:r ' f 361y1'6d f ,, ll-\7 oI Pla-nciff eViCenCe Or k r . r w i * r ^ r lv that trv his qhc arinrs cs^^^-c 1^-^ Lhar Pl a intiff 1-eqr'-on\/. and arrest investigation ne-sona- actuaf F,.l nerirrrcd nrccFrf of Plaintiff ma-a-" [hat D]an. presenr therefore he is f 's 2. Plaintiff's Individual Capacitv DepuLy fayl or's Cl-aim Against Sheriff for False Arr:est false In Count 1, Plaintiff cr^6r:rr her arrest a.rrested chc amounts to actual pursuant :l offi Sanders malice. As noted/ valid or errirJenr-c is arrest srd.rest that l-o injure ca,culated ev,idence of too fo warranLs. Sheriff entltled SUCh aUthOriZatiOn her. Sanders' to Plainrifl immunity officiaL on arrest o1 Deputy Taylor Thus, Lo rhe there is waS mallCiOUS Iails acLual maLice, His aurhorizaLion e x t ' e n t S h e r j - f f S a n d e r : sa u t h o r i z e C P I a j - n t i f f ' s a r r e s t , no ci af in a cfaim of false I r . n e s l -h a F h i s to to cLaim. also brings qa-..rars. Pl aintitl arrest SheriIf and entitfed inl,nunity on Plaintif inSiSt The COUrC finos ev idence of he not were motivated allanoc to ma-l-ice. and does W a m m o r - k ,q m a s . e r ,.,i-h fails She presenL ro and therefore Plaintiff's he false c l ai m . 3. Pf aintif Pfaintiff enforcemenr arrested f 's Claim Asainst alleses olficers and that 1n Count l Ior rhe l,,0ammock r False Arrest fo that purpose W a r u n o c kL i e d of such conduct amounts to having false this arrest 2B c.Laim because law Plainciit C e o - r g i a I a w . P r o s e h i a m m o c k ' sa n s w e r r o P I a i n L i f f ' s of to under compla inc it has no factual In basis. cases involvinq or hLa arirn r 9! r-rimin:l c v r m n l r iI nor- e r L J L n tF i-..-^rr-- L I9 ^-l pl^intiff D d ^ ri r^L.- ! ! l rl r . L s!,r that Count 2, car. ^^n^-.la< DepuLy TayIor sLnwrro that authoriLy of a review rrndar r ] o - 9r- r r i : -uLn f ! Adams or actual of cases 1- two raytv! i| n r J rl . .i .n J - r s rt . ,r from state nf that which jury a urged indirectly .Law cLalm against his l l r ynJr-r)r/ ua r r T q r r-l u !r -rJ n used u ro w :q r.ril-hin Thus, immuniLy on rhis claim use of WhiLe fhis LLrcL : i9 or! -Ll r L r n ' : Io.rce. his involvrng 29 His conduct amounts to assault Lo official malice. .Ln w h e n h e s . I a m m e dh e r i n t o d:ring J Tay.Ior Deputy Taylor that her arrest is enrit.ed f nrna independent DISMISSED r-h r r r:u h is absoluLe, o : !r g f u jl r r r - IrEPuLy no evidence asserts during Lhe scope of : ^ Deputy Claim Against for Assauft and Battery She alleges - rr a - nq is Plaintiff force unreasonable Ahqo.t v in liability. rho Pfaintiff's Pfaintiff's 4. Capacity fndividual -^r 1^-----. drrL-r I.)dLLsry makes an W a m m o c kd i - r e c t l y faLse arresL , , r l a r uc k f o r no a patrol a rh q l l a n -n o. < v e' y e ,r presenrs arrest, Plaintiff's l'i.rt h iff but determine In - ae aL - r r( r- l iAl 2 l B G a . A p p . 7 7 7 , 1 9 2 ( 2 A 0 6 ) . W a m m o c kf i l e d invescigat-ion, could who then to n.rl- pnf in ^rrl-r, PaLLr which does not result ^ :. rru^ i n 1 . j. < ! u d roerrlr wherei-n officiaL to arrest, Carlisle, I t I V e 5 an law in officials enforcement r ^ r hi r h incidents to informatlon v. law nrnnaadinne and Iiabilitv, declsion u rges indirecrly the arrest, beLween occasions wherein a party Georgia draws a discinction direculy faLse iT"runirv alregations -- ^l i.rl:rl\/ PdrLf--fL!tl is noL oI excessive c\ n- r! e, nv, J -: ! j \ - r ,tq F:rrc >ra ranrri ror] 579 F. App'x. with i ner6^,-l tLF"r tLh raL r n r r |va ^ r v , n qr i^^ Delonq v. not t- act shor 'r--tr.FqeFri not on r h.en t-^ r, with 104 arrestee's arm, a a v.iII, lha \/:1^/{a< offj rr him I he 1r^ )qG ar the lrrinn nrarrnd it kicked tl<lrr her ?O1 30 held rho suspect nrn'rnd handcuf :nrl aqq Selvv not ion, back, her 6^^ led where v, they A6? i Ly, eeq and Mo.rrison, actuaf qrabbed sfammed her -Legs ouL him officer act. with Len-year-oId l:r : lntoxicated L,sed profan dld her c inarrml Ann car) ; k icked of maflce confronLat behind was (200r) (officer r-.d and C^ \2008 ) (officers e ce r maLice where officer attack, cer's offi hi f .r actual dog profanity, inadvertencly as suspect, actual with a verbal twisted useo t. act 292 Ga. App. afcer head h-ler durrng a^7<^ aga inst where, an.l nrrcha.l wiIh moLorist rhe arrest act rli.'l not 702, in handcuffed s lammed moLorisr n.^-.ca1. <rrcnocr noc act qet her malice rhcn 'l'i | | I a r/1 and raf 1 5 1- 5 8 I rr 1-1.-ew cr.qnc.f threaLened her knoe C a . A p p . 1 5 1, 21I officer did tzna2\ t.\f f l ner into : Crirr.rc did to suspect nL,ar] susoe.t. actuaf wlth (2011) (officer maLjce r n a,,ena-l- ^^l i^^ P\Jaf Ls .^,1^h \r 2 A 7 4) ( o f f i c e r nrr<h-lzi lznaol where avd!rL-L r ' lr , . n n , - d a+Fitar Domenrci, motorist qnairrhf Y ..r..-'(.ianl-a||v rAmhr- qFA ii- when he ordered malice actual ^- did niar.o 16A (11r" C\r. 757, nrnrrnrl €l:f i.1 rhe face I rom under sor aa? .n Lhe /?ODq) (officer not act with did wilh an al tercaLion injrry causing pulled suspect, where off.icer, mallce her hair, picked after her up and Lhrew her on uhe ground); ro her snou]der, Hawkins v. DeKafb Cnr,y., Ga., 2008 WL 5000036, at *4 (N.D. cf. Ga, Nov. ^f actual Fii-ar 18. nrarrinrcl\/ ihrF:iFncd with resLra ined hitfi^o <1cne.r fhe firearm officer's Horo Pl 'r*r-ttraqa.1j-- wirh 'fv a.F is r'.\'1^r/ e --lL fft to entitled assauf t offir-i:l ^g c , 'r iJ a - - L L l ^-- n conmenced then Lhe wirh head to the loss) . f-Y^^f,- 'I ircii waS , nOL *ha- r-a-e by actual lenrrt\/ maface toward Thus, he is cause her injuries. immnnifv on Pfaintiff'S malicious. State law cfaim and battery. -ha {^"a^. r .-j ri y u L r t o u <nru and Sheriff to was motivated III. r^^n hr' record the force arms, ' -ri^rrc h:rm on che groJnd, P'ryJ!L_cl_1 i-- in nh\/ei-^l suspecL, tne officer in severe blood or was intended Pfaintiff f i"ros where malice Iay flar e miIdlU i.^ of rr<a nri urith that suspecr's 'rrl-inle causing ri an.l rrr|,rseJulst the actual err<nacr on his back afLer he voluntarily Lhe officer for : encoJnrer chen du.ring a IaLer knelt acted 2008) {offlcer :< aJ niL \ , . -n!. orry thc -^ CONCLUSION r-.r.-f ^-i-l Sanders are enrirled Iaw on each of Pfaintiff's cfaims 31 ^^*-ltdeS .-^r ro - n,-l Lhat r 'h r lL e .a Chere n 6 ^ J J L Ii - \ , ULIj is T u iJr fl v !r ^ r : judgment as a natrer against them. no of Deputy Taylor's ORDERED that IT IS THEREFORE Sanders' motion for Ld)r. \-vJ (doc. no. 30) is GRANTED. a claims agal'nst Wammock re DISMISSED. The Clerk is PLaintiff's directed j s u m . m a r yu d g n e n t and Sheriff to ENTER JIIDGMENTaqainst -^ F r"^.{ ORDER ENTERED in f :rrnr .\f Pfaintiff n vJ !j , eo ^ L , flaarai: at l- \/ and cLosE this T u l\- /vl!^ r . ^ l-hi < :n.d qhori f { 2f{; ?n1q TED STAT 32 DISTRICT JUDG

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.