Elroy Phillips vs Brian Smith, DEA Agent, in his individual capacity , 429 F. App'x 905 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 10, 2011
No. 10-13440 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:06-cv-22916-JEM
ELROY PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BRIAN SMITH,
DEA Agent, in his individual capacity,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 10, 2011)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Elroy Phillips, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals following the
district court’s grant of summary judgment to a government law enforcement agent
in the present suit, filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.
Bur. of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging an intentional Fifth Amendment
deprivation of his property and alleging a conversion claim under Florida law that
was dismissed without prejudice. He asserts that Brian Smith, a Drug Enforcement
Agency (“DEA”) Special Agent, intentionally deprived him of property that was
seized during his arrest on drug charges and the subsequent search of his residence.
On appeal, he argues: (1) that the district court improperly granted summary judgment
to Smith because his intent was in dispute; (2) that the district court violated Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72 by failing to consider his objections to the magistrate’s report and
recommendation; and (3) for the first time, that the district court improperly
dismissed his state law conversion claim when it properly rested upon federal
diversity jurisdiction. After thorough review, we affirm in part, and dismiss in part.
We review a district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo, and
view all of the facts in the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
drawing inferences in his favor. Houston v. Williams, 547 F.3d 1357, 1361 (11th Cir.
2008). We can affirm a grant of summary judgment on any basis supported by the
record. Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2001). We
2
review our jurisdiction sua sponte and de novo. United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d
1309, 1311 (11th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). We review a district court’s
determination that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Sinaltrain v.
Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009).
First, we are unpersuaded by Phillips’s claim that the district court improperly
granted summary judgment to Smith. Summary judgment requires the movant to
show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). If the movant satisfies
the burden of production, showing that there is no genuine issue of fact, then “the
nonmoving party must present evidence beyond the pleadings showing that a
reasonable jury could find in its favor.” Shiver v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 1342, 1343
(11th Cir. 2008) (citation and quotation omitted). “In reviewing motions for summary
judgment, neither we nor the district court are to undertake credibility determinations
or weigh the evidence.” Tana v. Dantanna’s, 611 F.3d 767, 775 n.7 (11th Cir. 2010)
(alteration, citation, and quotation omitted). The nonmoving party cannot create a
genuine issue of material fact through speculation, conjecture, or evidence that is
“merely colorable” or “not significantly probative.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986). The nonmoving party must provide more than a “mere
scintilla of evidence” to survive a motion for summary judgment. Mendoza v.
3
Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238, 1244 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (citation and quotation
omitted).
The Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment is “not implicated by a negligent act of an official causing unintended
loss of . . . property.” Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986) (emphasis
omitted). The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and Fifth Amendment’s
Due Process Clause prohibit the same activity, with the Fifth Amendment simply
applying to federal officials, rather than state officials. See Dusenberry v. United
States, 534 U.S. 161, 167 (2002).
In Bivens, the Supreme Court held that an implied cause of action against
federal agents existed for violation of an individual’s constitutional rights, under in
that particular case, the Fourth Amendment. 403 U.S. at 390-97. The Supreme Court
has also recognized that Bivens applies to invidious discrimination under the equal
protection component of the Fifth Amendment. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S. __ ,
129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009) (holding that a claim of invidious discrimination under
the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment requires proof that a
defendant “acted with discriminatory purpose”).
While neither we nor the Supreme Court have considered the viability of a
Bivens remedy for deprivation of property claims, subsequent to the Supreme Court’s
4
ruling in Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (2008), this issue need not
be resolved because even assuming arguendo that a Bivens action can lie in the
instant context, Phillips’s claim still fails. Phillips presented no evidence, beyond
conclusory allegations, to demonstrate that Smith intentionally deprived him of his
property. While he claimed that Smith’s intent could be inferred from his alleged lies
concerning various matters, he presented no evidence to show that Smith intended to
deprive him of his property. Moreover, neither the magistrate nor the district court
were in a position to weigh witness credibility during summary judgment, and
Phillips presented no evidence of Smith’s intent beyond conclusory allegations. On
the contrary, Smith presented the statements of a number of witnesses and
documentary evidence to back his version of the relevant events. Smith said that he
never intended to deprive Phillips of his property and never stole or directed others
to steal it, which was similarly averred by other individuals.
In sum, Phillips failed to create a genuine issue of material fact with regard to
the dispositive issue of Smith’s intent, by failing to provide evidence from which a
reasonable jury could find that Smith intentionally acted to deprive Phillips of his
property without due process. Accordingly, the district court properly granted
summary judgment to Smith on Phillips’s Bivens claim, and we affirm.
5
Next, we find no merit in Phillips’s claim that the district court violated
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 by failing to consider his objections to the magistrate’s report and
recommendation. “Where an appellant notices the appeal of a specified judgment
only, this court has no jurisdiction to review other judgments or issues which are not
expressly referred to and which are not impliedly intended for appeal.” Timson v.
Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (alteration, citation, and quotation
omitted). “[E]xcept in certain types of cases, this circuit has recognized that since
only a final judgment or order is appealable, the appeal from a final judgment draws
in question all prior non-final orders and rulings which produced the judgment.”
Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 930 (11th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). However,
no intent to appeal from an order that had not yet been entered when the notice of
appeal was filed can be ascertained, because the intent to appeal that future order was
not apparent, and review on the merits would prejudice the other party. McDougald
v. Jenson, 786 F.2d 1465, 1474 (11th Cir. 1986); see also LaChance v. Duffy’s Draft
House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832, 836-38 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that a notice of appeal
from an order granting summary judgment could not cover a subsequent order
awarding attorney’s fees, when the notice of appeal was filed before the motion
requesting attorney’s fees). A notice of appeal must designate an existent judgment
or order, not one that is merely expected or that is, or should be, within the
6
appellant’s contemplation when the notice of appeal is filed. Bogle v. Orange County
Bd. of County Comm’rs, 162 F.3d 653, 661 (11th Cir. 1998).
Here, Phillips filed his notice of appeal before the district court ruled on his
motions concerning his lack of an opportunity to object to the magistrate’s report and
recommendation. His notice of appeal could not have clearly intended to challenge
the determination that any objections he filed to the magistrate’s report were
untimely, as the notice of appeal was filed before the district court so ruled. See
McDougald, 786 F.2d at 1474; see also LaChance, 146 F.3d at 836-38; Bogle, 162
F.3d at 661. The determination he seeks to challenge also related to motions filed
after the summary judgment order he designated in his notice of appeal, which means
that the unresolved motions are not drawn up for appeal by the mention of that order.
Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider Phillips’s claim concerning the district
court’s failure to consider his objections, and we dismiss his appeal in this respect.
Finally, we reject Phillips’s claim -- raised for the first time on appeal -- that
the district court improperly dismissed his state law conversion claim when it
properly rested upon federal diversity jurisdiction. “It is the burden of the party
seeking federal jurisdiction to demonstrate that diversity exists by a preponderance
of the evidence.” Molinos Valle Del Cibao, C. por A. v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330, 1340
(11th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). As a general rule, in a civil case we will not
7
consider an issue on appeal that was not raised before the district court. See BUC
Intern. Corp. v. Int’l Yacht Council Ltd., 489 F.3d 1129, 1140 (11th Cir. 2007).
However, “subject matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court’s power to hear a
case, can never be forfeited or waived.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514
(2006) (citation and quotation omitted).
To the extent we review Phillips’s diversity argument because it raises a
jurisdictional issue, it is meritless. He failed to base his Florida state law conversion
claim upon diversity jurisdiction before the district court, he explicitly based his
Bivens claim on federal question jurisdiction, and he explicitly based his conversion
claim on supplemental jurisdiction thereto. Insofar as the district court made an
implicit determination that Phillips failed to meet his burden to show diversity
jurisdiction for his conversion claim, by dismissing it pursuant to its discretionary
supplemental jurisdiction authority, it did not err. See Molinos, 633 F.3d at 1340(burden on party seeking jurisdiction). Phillips failed to allege that he and Smith
were domiciled in different states and he failed to invoke diversity jurisdiction as the
jurisdictional basis for his conversion claim. He, therefore, failed to meet his burden
to demonstrate diversity jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See id.Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.
8