Massey v. Ojaniit, 13–1460.

Decision Date21 July 2014
Docket NumberNo. 13–1460.,13–1460.
Citation759 F.3d 343
PartiesShawn 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.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

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.

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.

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 renderedagainst 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

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 and Fourteenth Amendments, and conspiracy to contravene his constitutional rights. The complaint also asserts state law claims for obstruction of justice, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy. 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. Although a magistrate judge recommended granting Ledford's Rule 12(c) motion and denying those of Ojaniit and Esposito, see Massey v. Ojaniit, No. 3:11–cv–00477, 2012 WL 7827854 (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–cv–00477 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2013), ECF No. 52 (the Order”).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).” 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 the complaint in a light most favorable to [Massey].’ 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 complaint and authentic.See Order 12–13 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c); Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir.2009)). The court gave significant attention to the transcript of Massey's 1999 criminal trial, see J.A. 91–436, underscoring that the transcript was “a public record whose authenticity is not in dispute” and had “been submitted as an exhibit [to the officers' answers].” See Order 16 n. 4. 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 attempted to rape Wood. Because Wood was menstruating, the man ceased that pursuit and proceeded 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 5' 9?, 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 Wood described the man as wearing a red shirt and blue denim shorts.

The following day, the two officers returned to the 250–unit 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. After Esposito misinformed Pride that he was investigating 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. See J.A. 76 (photographic lineup attached as exhibit to officers' answers). Ojaniit showed Wood the lineup, and Wood selected Massey's photo as “looking the most like her assailant. Compl. ¶ 20 (emphasis added). Ojaniit wrote in his report, however, that Wood said that Massey's photo “looked like the suspect except that the suspect had longer hair with braids and he did not have a beard.” J.A. 77 (emphasis added) (May 23, 1998 report of Ojaniit attached as exhibit to officers' answers). 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 second-degree kidnapping. See J.A. 78–85 (arrest warrants attached as exhibit to answers of Officers Ojaniit and Esposito). On September 8, 1998, a grand jury in Mecklenburg County returned five indictments against Massey. See id. at 86–90 (indictments attached as exhibit to answers of Ojaniit and Esposito). Massey was tried on the consolidated indictments about 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.” J.A. 136. Prompted by the prosecutor to specify whether “the braids [went] all through his hair or were ... just on the back or just on the sides,” Wood testified that the braids “went through.” Id. at 137. In other words, Wood indicated that her assailant's hair was braided in what are commonly known as “cornrows.” See Compl. ¶ 2. She also stated that her assailant wore a red, jersey-like 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 such as, ‘Could we go out,’ and ‘Baby, you look good.’ J.A. 166–67. Savall testified that the man was wearing 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
569 cases
  • Pressl v. Appalachian Power Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • October 6, 2015
    ...and Nissen, I could dispose of this argument by properly taking judicial notice of prior decisions and outcomes. Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 347 (4th Cir.2014)(noting that a court "need not accept allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial ...
  • Robinson v. Miller
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • September 10, 2015
    ...are analogous to the common-law tort of malicious prosecution."11 Brooks, 85 F.3d at 182 (citations omitted); see also Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 356 (4th Cir. 2014) (stating that a Section 1983 claim that "alleges malicious prosecution and unreasonable seizure . . . is properly 'foun......
  • United States v. Mashni
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • July 1, 2021
    ...under Rule 12(b)(6)." Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. I.R.S., 361 F. App'x 527, 529 (4th Cir. 2010) ; see also Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 353 (4th Cir. 2014) ("[W]e are mindful that a Rule 12(c) motion tests only the sufficiency of the complaint and does not resolve the merits of the......
  • Hogans v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • September 24, 2021
    ...the court must construe the facts and reasonable inferences "in the light most favorable to [the nonmoving party]." Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 352 (4th Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted); see Clatterbuck v. City of Charlottesville, 708 F.3d 549, 557 (4th Cir. 2013), abrogated on other gro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Prisoners' Rights
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...authority of state law.” 3194 The second category involves an off‌icer personally involved in alleged excessive force); Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 355-56 (4th Cir. 2014) (no cognizable § 1983 claim under 14th Amendment when prisoner could not show causal link between evidence fabricat......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT