Watts v. Graves

• Decision Date: 12 December 1983
• Docket Number: No. 83-3135,83-3135
• Citation: 720 F.2d 1416
• Parties: Wallace WATTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Odom GRAVES, Sheriff, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Summary Calendar.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 1416

720 F.2d 1416

Wallace WATTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.Odom GRAVES, Sheriff, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 83-3135

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 12, 1983.

Wallace Watts, pro se.

Burgess & Lee, John R. Burgess, Livingston, La., for Graves and Stewart.

J. Marvin Montgomery, Baton Rouge, La., for Rowe.

James E. Kuhn, Asst. Dist. Atty., Denham Springs, La., for Sibley.

Durrett, Hardin, Hunter, Dameron & Fritchie, H. Evans Scobee, Baton Rouge, La., for Tridico, Buie and Painter.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.

Before REAVLEY, RANDALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant-petitioner, Wallace Watts, brought a section 1983 action against twelve persons who he alleged had acted to deprive him of rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.The district court dismissed Watts' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

Facts and Procedural Background

In the early months of 1980, Watts became the subject of an investigation into alleged narcotics sales conducted by the Detective Divisions of the Sheriff's Departments of Ascension and Livingston Parishes.The investigation was conducted through the use of a confidential informant, who made several narcotics purchases while fitted with an electronic transmitter, permitting the substance of the conversations between the confidential informant and Watts to be overheard and recorded by law enforcement officials.

Based upon this information, search warrants were issued on March 21, 1981 by the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, authorizing the search of Watts' residence.Among the items seized in the search were quantities of cash and several safety deposit box keys.On March 24, 1981, search warrants were applied for in the Parishes of Ascension and Livingston to search safety deposit boxes in Watts' name in those parishes.¹A search of those boxes produced large sums of cash.

On June 1, 1981, Watts pleaded guilty in a Louisiana court to distribution of a schedule II controlled substance and received a sentence of twenty years imprisonment and a $15,000 fine.Based upon an apparent "misunderstanding" concerning his plea bargain, Watts then sought state post-conviction relief.The state judge found that Watts' plea bargain had not been kept and resentenced Watts to five years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine.

Two months later, while incarcerated at Louisiana's Hunt Correctional Center, Watts brought this pro se section 1983 suit in federal district court against twelve individuals who had brought about his arrest and conviction.²Named as defendants are The Honorable Samuel T. Rowe, Judge, Twenty-First Judicial District; Odom Graves, Sheriff, Livingston Parish; James A. Sibley, Police Jury President, Livingston Parish; Wayne Sanders, Deputy Sheriff, Livingston Parish; Hayden Berry, Deputy Sheriff, Livingston Parish; Dillard Stewart, Deputy Sheriff, Livingston Parish; Harold Tridico, Sheriff, Ascension Parish; Elamen Bobbin, Police Jury President, Ascension Parish; Eddie Buie, Deputy Sheriff, Ascension Parish; Murphy Painter, Chief Deputy Sheriff, Ascension Parish; and "Suzie," confidential informant, Sheriff's Department, Livingston Parish.Watts' complaint contains three allegations: (1) the interception of oral communications between him and the informant "Suzie" was accomplished without a warrant in violation of the fourth and fourteenth amendments;(2) the granting of the subsequent warrant to search his home on the basis of the illegally intercepted oral communications was improper in violation of the fourth and fourteenth amendments; and (3) the search of his safety deposit boxes was accomplished without a warrant in violation of the fourth and fourteenth amendments.The district court referred the matter to a magistrate, who ordered the defendants served.Three defendants filed an answer and all defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

The magistrate issued his recommendations to the district court judge on September 29, 1982, recommending that Watts' action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.The magistrate apparently understood the gist of the complaint to be that no warrant was obtained prior to the recording of Watts' conversations.On the basis of the Supreme Court's opinion in United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 91 S.Ct. 1122, 28 L.Ed.2d 453(1971), in which the Court held that the Constitution does not require a warrant before conversations are overheard or recorded by law enforcement officials when done with the consent of one of the conversants, the magistrate found that "plaintiff's constitutional right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated, and plaintiff has failed to state a claim."Record on Appealat 120-27.The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendations and dismissed the action.From this judgment, Watts appeals.

Standard of Review

In testing the sufficiency of a section 1983 complaint, it must be remembered that the complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief.Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80(1957);Richardson v. Fleming, 651 F.2d 366(5th Cir.1981).The allegations of the complaint, particularly a pro se complaint, must be accepted as true, along with any reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom.Ryland v. Shapiro, 708 F.2d 967(5th Cir.1983)."A prisoner's pro se complaint, 'however inartfully pleaded,' must be held to 'less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers' and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' "Richardson v. Fleming, 651 F.2d at 368(quotingEstelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251(1976)).With this standard in mind, we examine the dismissal of Watts' complaint.

Rule 12(b)(6) Dismissal

To the extent that the district court dismissed those allegations of Watts' complaint concerning the warrantless "seizure" of the conversations between Watts and "Suzie" and any effect that may have on subsequently obtained warrants, dismissal was properly granted.The Supreme Court has clearly held in United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 91 S.Ct. 1122, 28 L.Ed.2d 453(1971), that the fourth amendment is not violated through the warrantless use of a radio transmitter concealed on the person of an informer with the informer's consent.In White, an informant recorded conversations with the defendant through the use of a concealed radio transmitter.At his trial for illegal transactions in narcotics, the defendant sought to exclude the testimony of the agents who had monitored the conversations on the basis that the conversations had been monitored and recorded without a prior warrant in violation of the fourth amendment.The district court admitted the testimony.After his conviction, the defendant appealed on this issue.The Court of Appeals overturned the defendant's conviction, finding that the defendant's fourth amendment rights had been violated by the warrantless electronic transmission of conversations to agents equipped with radio receivers and that, therefore, the testimony of the agents should have been excluded.The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the fourth amendment does not bar from evidence "the testimony of governmental agents who related certain conversations which had occurred between [the]defendant ... and a government informant, ... which the agents overheard by monitoring [without a warrant] the frequency of a radio transmitter carried by [the informant] and concealed on his person."401 U.S. at 746-47, 91 S.Ct. at 1123.Thus, White clearly holds that the interception of conversations between a confidential informant and a defendant, monitored without warrant, but which conversations were intercepted with the knowledge and consent of the confidential informant, does not violate the defendant's fourth amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.Therefore, the warrantless interception of Watts' conversations with "Suzie" does not state a claim under section 1983 for a violation of Watts' fourth amendment rights.Because the interception of the conversations is not violative of the fourth amendment, neither can it serve to taint the subsequently obtained warrants and evidence.The district court properly dismissed these allegations of Watts' complaint.

However, the district court reads Watts' complaint too narrowly.Watts argues to this court on appeal that the gravamen of his complaint "is that defendants had no authority, search warrant or otherwise, to search [Watts'] safety deposit boxes ...."Appellant's Supplemental Briefat 1.Reading Watts' pro se complaint liberally, as we must on an appeal from a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Bruce v. Wade, 537 F.2d 850(5th Cir.1976), we think that Watts' complaint is fairly read to state such an allegation.By alleging a warrantless search by state law enforcement officers of his safety deposit boxes, Watts has sufficiently alleged a violation of his fourth amendment right (made applicable to the States through the fourteenth amendment) to be secure in his person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and, therefore, has sufficiently alleged a section 1983 violation.The district court erred in dismissing Watts' entire complaint insofar as this allegation, unrecognized by the district court, was dismissed.

Defendant Rowe

Nevertheless, the district court's dismissal of the entire complaint...