Gervin v. Florence

667 F.Supp.3d 1325

DeShawn GERVIN, Plaintiff, v. Pamela FLORENCE, et al., Defendants.

CASE NO.: 1:21-CV-67 (LAG)

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Albany Division

Signed March 31, 2023

Samantha Jill Funt, Zack Greenamyre, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff.

Susan Elizabeth Teaster, Annette M. Cowart, Atlanta, GA, Laura Louise Lones, Dept. of Law, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.

ORDER

LESLIE A. GARDNER, JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 15). For the reasons below, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

BACKGROUND

On April 23, 2021, Plaintiff DeShawn Gervin initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against three Georgia Department of Community Supervision Officers—Defendants Pamela Florence, Hoke Hampton, and Tandria Milton.¹ (Doc. 1). The Georgia Department of Community Supervision (GDCS) was created in July 2015, combining supervisory functions for parolees and probationers that were previously assigned to the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles and the Georgia Department of Corrections. See O.C.G.A. § 42-3-3; (Doc. 15-2 ¶ 8 n.4). Plaintiff's claims arise from his arrest and detention for probation violations. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 11-38).

In 2011, Plaintiff was charged in the Superior Court of Mitchell County, Georgia, with one count of criminal intent to commit burglary. (Doc. 15-2 ¶ 1; Doc. 16-1 ¶ 1; Doc. 15-12 at 3). Plaintiff pleaded guilty to this charge, and Judge A. Wallace Cato sentenced Plaintiff to one year in jail, followed by nine years of probation. (Doc. 15-12 at 1, 3; Doc. 15-2 ¶¶ 2-3; Doc. 16-1 ¶¶ 2-3). At the sentencing hearing and in the Final Disposition Order, Judge Cato imposed only one condition of probation: that Plaintiff not return to the South Georgia Judicial Circuit, which includes Mitchell, Calhoun, Baker, Grady, and Decatur Counties. (Doc. 15-11 at 17:9-19:3; Doc. 15-12 at 1, 3; Doc. 15-2 ¶ 4; Doc. 16-1 ¶ 4). When Plaintiff was released from jail in January 2012, a sheriff escorted him to the Greyhound bus station, and Plaintiff boarded a bus traveling to Missouri. (Doc. 15-2 ¶¶ 5-6; Doc. 16-1 ¶¶ 5-6; Doc. 16-2 ¶ 9; Doc. 17-1 ¶ 9). Despite adhering to the terms of his probation and staying out of the South Georgia Judicial Circuit, on April 26, 2019, Plaintiff was arrested in North Carolina pursuant to a probation-violation warrant obtained by Defendant Florence in 2012. (Doc. 15-2 ¶ 13; Doc. 16-1 ¶ 13; Doc. 16-2 ¶¶ 1, 4; Doc. 17-1 ¶¶ 1, 4). Plaintiff was extradited to Georgia and detained in the Mitchell County Jail for 104 days. (Doc. 15-2 ¶¶ 14-15; Doc. 16-1 ¶¶ 14-15; Doc. 16-2 ¶ 2; Doc. 17-1 ¶ 2). His arrest and detention resulted from what appears to be a failure of GDCS and its officers to conduct even a cursory investigation before seeking Plaintiff's arrest.

In April 2012, Defendant Florence, the probation officer assigned to Plaintiff's case, learned that Plaintiff had been released from jail; but she was unable to determine his location. (Doc. 16-2 ¶ 12; Doc. 17-1 ¶ 12). On May 31, 2012, Defendant Florence requested and obtained a warrant for Plaintiff, alleging that he had failed to report to the probation office as directed and absconded from supervision. (Doc. 15-2 ¶ 9; Doc. 16-1 ¶ 9; Doc. 15-6 at 1). In the affidavit submitted with the warrant application, Defendant Florence stated:

The Probationer has violated the terms and conditions of said Probation in that as of the 29th day of May, 2012, said probationer has failed to report to the Camilla Probation Office, Camilla, Mitchell County, Georgia, since release from the Mitchell County Jail on 01-20-12 and has absconded from probation supervision, his whereabouts are unknown.

This constitutes a violation of Condition of Probation 4 and 6, which provides that defendant: #4: Report to the Probation-Parole supervisor as directed and permit such Supervisor to visit him (her) at home or elsewhere and #6: Do not change his (her) present place of abode, move outside the jurisdiction of the Court, or leave the State for any period of time without prior permission of the Probation Supervisor[.]

(Doc. 15-6 at 1 (emphasis added); Doc. 16-2 ¶ 5; Doc. 17-1 ¶ 5).

Of course, Plaintiff had committed no such violations. Given the sentence imposed by the Superior Court, Judge Cato did not impose a reporting or residency requirement. (Doc. 16-2 ¶ 6; Doc. 17-1 ¶ 6; see Doc. 15-12 at 1). The Final Disposition—the only document in the record² setting forth the sentence or terms of probation—clearly shows that neither General Condition 4—the standard reporting requirement—nor General Condition 6—the residency requirement—were applied to Plaintiff. (Doc. 15-12 at 1). During her deposition, Defendant Florence stated that before applying for the warrant for Plaintiff's arrest, she reviewed the face of Plaintiff's sentence; but this clearly was not true in light of the Final Disposition. (Doc. 15-4 at 40:17-41:4; Doc. 16-2 ¶ 14; Doc. 17-1 ¶ 14). Defendant Florence did admit that she did not review a copy of the transcript from Plaintiff's sentencing hearing or ask anyone for clarification about the sentence. (Doc. 15-4 at 42:22-43:3; Doc. 16-2 ¶ 21; Doc. 17-1 ¶ 21). Defendant Florence also admitted that she knew Judge Cato had a practice of reading the probation terms to defendants during their sentencing hearings and that she could request a transcript for a sentencing hearing if there were any questions about a given sentence. (Doc. 16-2 ¶ 20; Doc. 17-1 ¶ 20). Defendant Florence further testified that under GDCS Policy, she was required to review a copy of a probationer's sentence and undertake a reasonable investigation before submitting an arrest warrant application based on a probation violation. (Doc. 15-4 at 18:9-22:24; Doc. 16-2 ¶¶ 13, 18; Doc. 17-1 ¶¶ 13, 18). It is now clear that Defendant Florence neither reviewed the face of Plaintiff's sentence nor undertook a reasonable investigation before submitting the application for the arrest warrant. Plaintiff was arrested pursuant to the warrant issued based on Defendant Florence's averments. (Doc. 16-2 ¶ 1; Doc. 17-1 ¶ 1).

In May 2014, Defendant Hampton joined GDCS, working under Defendant Florence's supervision. (Doc. 15-2 ¶ 10; Doc. 16-1 ¶ 10). At Defendant Florence's direction, Defendant Hampton filed an affidavit requesting that Plaintiff's sentence be tolled until his whereabouts were determined. (Doc. 15-2 ¶ 12; Doc. 16-1 ¶ 12). A Superior Court of Mitchell County judge granted Defendant Hampton's request and entered an order tolling Plaintiff's sentence on October 31, 2014. (Doc. 15-8 at 1).

In July 2019, Defendant Milton was notified that Plaintiff had been arrested in North Carolina and extradited to Mitchell County. (Doc. 16-2 ¶ 23; Doc. 17-1 ¶ 23). During her deposition, Defendant Milton testified that she reviewed a copy of Plaintiff's sentence—presumably the Final Disposition—and then prepared a petition for revocation of Plaintiff's probation. (Doc. 15-9 at 21:9-22:21; Doc. 16-2 ¶¶ 24-25, 27; Doc. 17-1 ¶¶ 24-25, 27). While Defendant Milton claims that she reviewed Plaintiff's sentence before she prepared the petition, the charges therein are nearly identical to the allegations in Defendant Florence's warrant application:

Count I:

The Probationer has violated the terms and conditions of said Probation in that as of the 20th day of January, 2012, said Probationer has failed to report to the Camilla [G]DCS Office. Current whereabouts were unknown. This is a violation of general condition #4: Report to the Probation supervisor as directed and permit such supervisor to visit him at home or elsewhere.

Count II:

This Probationer has violated the terms and conditions of said Probation in that as of the 20th day of January, 2012, said Probationer moved without permission from his Officer and his current whereabouts were unknown. This is a violation of general condition #6: Do not change his present place of abode, move outside the jurisdiction of the Court, or leave the state for any period of time without prior permission of the Probation Supervisor.

(Doc. 15-10 at 3; see Doc. 15-6 at 1). Defendant Florence reviewed the petition before Defendant Milton filed it. (Doc. 15-2 ¶ 18; Doc. 16-1 ¶ 18). On July 18, 2019, a Superior Court of Mitchell County judge signed the petition and ordered Plaintiff to appear for a probation violation hearing the next month. (Doc. 15-10 at 1). Defendant Milton served Plaintiff with the petition on July 23, 2019, at the Mitchell County Jail, where he had been detained since April 26, 2019. (Id. at 1-3; Doc. 16-2 ¶ 28; Doc. 17-1 ¶ 28).

A hearing was held in the Superior Court of Mitchell County on August 7, 2019. (Doc. 15-2 ¶ 19; Doc. 16-1 ¶ 19). After hearing testimony from Defendant Milton and argument from the parties, the Superior Court judge concluded that the State did not prove Plaintiff had violated a condition of his probation and reinstated Plaintiff's original probation sentence. (Doc. 15-13 at 3-8; Doc. 15-2 ¶ 20; Doc. 16-1 ¶ 20). Plaintiff was released from jail the same day after a total of 104 days of detention. (Doc. 15-2 ¶ 21; Doc. 16-1 ¶ 21; Doc. 16-2 ¶ 3; Doc. 17-1 ¶ 3). Plaintiff's probation ended in January 2021, in accordance with the original nine-year term imposed by the Mitchell County Superior Court in 2012. (Doc. 15-2 ¶ 22; Doc. 16-1 ¶ 22).

In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendants in their individual capacities. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 5, 8-10). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "violated [his] Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment" rights by causing him to be "arrested and jailed despite his compliance with [the] terms of [his] probation." (Id. ¶¶ 38-57). As relief, Plaintiff seeks nominal, compensatory, special, and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and "any additional or alternative legal or equitable relief that is just and appropriate." (Id. at 10). On May 16, 2022, Defendants filed the present Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 15). Plaintiff...