Bosarge v. Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics

Case: 14-60242 Document: 00513116367 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/15/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60242

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

CHARLES C. BOSARGE, July 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Plaintiff - Appellee Clerk

v.

MISSISSIPPI BUREAU OF NARCOTICS; CAL REYNOLDS; ERIC

FULTON,

Defendants - Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

Before BARKSDALE, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:

Charles C. Bosarge sued the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics and two

state agents under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Mississippi state law. He alleged that

the agents falsely identified him as a participant in a drug ring and caused him

to be unlawfully detained for six months. The district court denied the

Defendants’ motion requesting judgment on the pleadings or summary

judgment on the basis of qualified or absolute immunity. On interlocutory

appeal, we hold that the district court erred in denying the Defendants’ motion

for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).

Case: 14-60242 Document: 00513116367 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/15/2015

No. 14-60242

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

On June 16, 2009, a federal grand jury indicted Charles C. Bosarge (a/k/a

“Smooth”) and eighteen others. The defendants were charged with conspiracy

to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), 846. Bosarge was subsequently arrested and detained for six

months. In December 2009, six weeks before a scheduled trial, the District

Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed Bosarge from the

indictment without prejudice, pursuant to the government’s motion.

In his § 1983 lawsuit, Bosarge claimed that he “was prosecuted, arrested,

and detained without probable cause and without due process of law, in

violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.” He alleged that

Defendants Eric Fulton and Kyle Reynolds, 1 agents with the Mississippi

Bureau of Narcotics, caused these violations by intentionally or recklessly

misidentifying him as the person they viewed participating in a drug

transaction. In addition, Bosarge sought to hold the agents and the Mississippi

Bureau of Narcotics liable for the state law torts of false arrest, false

imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, and for violations of unnamed

provisions of the Mississippi Constitution.

Bosarge’s pleadings alleged the following facts. Fulton and Reynolds,

relying in part on wiretapped cell phone conversations, planned to observe a

drug deal between a man named Timothy Isom and another suspect in a Best

Buy parking lot in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, on November 21, 2008. After

witnessing the drug deal, Fulton and Reynolds identified Bosarge as the second

suspect, and “[t]his information was either provided directly to federal officials

by Defendants Reynolds and Fulton, or was provided to federal officials by

other state agents who did so on the basis of claims by Defendants Reynolds

1 The original complaint erroneously spelled Reynolds’s first name as “Cal.”

2

Case: 14-60242 Document: 00513116367 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/15/2015

No. 14-60242

and Fulton that it was true.” However, Bosarge alleged that he was not the

person in the Best Buy parking lot. He claimed that the agents “acted

intentionally or recklessly in falsely identifying” him, and that they “knew or

should have known that their identification of [him] was false.” Bosarge alleged

that the agents identified him to reinforce a previously-formed conclusion that

the man who met with Isom at the Best Buy was named Charles Bosarge. The

agents reached that conclusion because the license plate of the second suspect’s

car was registered to a woman named Mindi Bosarge, and Mindi Bosarge’s

father or brother, Charles Bosarge, owned the cell phone used to communicate

with Isom. Mindi Bosarge’s father or brother, Charles Bosarge, is a different

person than the Plaintiff. While Bosarge (the Plaintiff) acknowledged that

Fulton and Reynolds stated in affidavits that they “did not know the name of

the Plaintiff prior to selecting his photograph as the person they saw at the

Best Buy parking lot,” Bosarge claimed that “those affidavits are not

necessarily accurate.”

Bosarge alleged that at the time of the meeting with Isom, he was

working a 12-hour shift on a shrimp boat. He claimed that the person who

participated in the drug deal with Isom was named Randall Eric Tillman.

According to Bosarge, the agents “knew before the Best Buy surveillance that

the person who was talking with Isom” on the cell phone “went by the

nickname ‘Smooth,’” which is the “same nickname used by Randall Eric

Tillman.” Bosarge alleged that Isom later identified the second person in the

Best Buy parking lot as someone other than Bosarge. Bosarge alleged that that

person, “whether Tillman or someone else,” “does not look enough like the

Plaintiff so that the Plaintiff could be reasonably mistaken for him.”

Bosarge claimed that “[a]s a result of this false identification, federal

prosecutors included Plaintiff in their request for an indictment.” Bosarge

further alleged that Fulton “repeated the false identification” before the grand

3

Case: 14-60242 Document: 00513116367 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/15/2015

No. 14-60242

jury, and that “no other evidence implicating the Plaintiff was presented to the

grand jury.” After Bosarge’s indictment and subsequent arrest, Reynolds

testified as to the identification in an initial detention hearing in Mobile,

Alabama, at which “[n]o other evidence was presented linking Plaintiff to this

[drug] ring.” At a second detention hearing in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, the

identification by Fulton and Reynolds was “used as a ground for continuing to

detain” Bosarge.

Bosarge stressed that his lawsuit is “based on the false identification”

that the Defendants provided to state or federal officials, and “not based on

Agent Fulton’s testimony to the grand jury, Agent Reynolds’[s] testimony at

the detention hearing in Mobile, the use of their prior testimony at the

detention hearing in Hattiesburg, or their preparation to testify at any of these

hearings.” Bosarge further alleged that “the Defendant agents’ false testimony

at those proceedings taints them so that those events do not break the chain of

causation.”

Bosarge originally filed his complaint in the Circuit Court of Hinds

County, Mississippi, against the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics, Fulton,

Reynolds, and John Does 1-10. The Defendants removed the case to federal

court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction and supplemental

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367. 2 The Defendants raised a number of

affirmative defenses, including absolute and qualified immunity. The district

court directed Bosarge to file a reply under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a)

2 We question, but need not resolve, the Defendants’ claim that we also have diversity

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Frazier v. Pioneer Americas LLC, 455 F.3d 542, 547

(5th Cir. 2006) (“[I]t is long-settled that a state has no citizenship for § 1332(a) diversity

purposes.”); Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806) (“[E]ach of the

plaintiffs must be capable of suing each of the defendants.”).

4

Case: 14-60242 Document: 00513116367 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/15/2015

No. 14-60242

“alleging with particularity the specific facts which, if true, would overcome

the qualified immunity defenses raised by Defendants.” The district court also

stayed all discovery.

After Bosarge filed his Rule 7(a) reply, the Defendants filed a “motion for

judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, [] summary judgment.” The

Defendants argued that Bosarge’s pleadings are insufficient to state a claim

under either federal or state law because he “offers no factual detail concerning

how [the agents’] alleged error was the product of malice, intent, or

recklessness.” The Defendants further argued that even if the pleadings

sufficiently alleged constitutional violations, three “breaks in the causal chain”

insulated the agents from liability: the grand jury’s finding of probable cause,

the detention proceeding in Mobile, and the detention proceeding in

Hattiesburg. Finally, the Defendants argued that the Mississippi Tort Claims

Act immunizes them from suit for violations of state law. In the alternative,

the Defendants argued that they are entitled to summary judgment under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on the basis of affidavits by Fulton and

Reynolds, which were attached to the motion. These affidavits described the

agents’ surveillance at the Best Buy parking lot in November 2008 and their

subsequent, independent identifications of Bosarge from a number of

photographs of potential suspects. Bosarge later filed an amended complaint,

which incorporated facts from the agents’ affidavits. The Defendants filed an

answer realleging the same immunity defenses as in their first answer, and

they filed a second motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary

judgment. In the second motion, the Defendants raised the same arguments as

they had in the first, and they further argued that the agents were entitled to

absolute immunity under a recent Supreme Court case, Rehberg v. Paulk, 132

S. Ct. 1497 (2012). The district court held a hearing on the Defendants’ motion

before issuing an oral ruling denying the motion. The district court found that

5

Case: 14-60242 Document: 00513116367 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/15/2015

No. 14-60242

Bosarge had “pled a claim that entitles him to discovery,” and that the

Defendants were not entitled to qualified or absolute immunity. The district

court did not expressly consider the state law claims, and it did not issue a

written opinion. The Defendants timely appealed.

JURISDICTION

The denial of qualified or absolute immunity, “to the extent that it turns

on an issue of law,” is a “final decision” that may be immediately appealed as

a collateral order. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985); see also Palmer

v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 350 (5th Cir. 1999). That denial is appealable

“whether the ruling occurs at the pleadings stage or at summary judgment.”

Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 528 (5th Cir. 2004). The Supreme Court has

held that appeals courts, in reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis of qualified immunity,

have “jurisdiction to pass on the sufficiency of [the] pleadings,” which is an

“issue of law” that “is both inextricably intertwined with, and directly

implicated by, the qualified immunity defense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

672–73 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Given that

“[t]he standard for dismissal under Rule 12(c) is the same as that for dismissal

for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6),” Johnson, 385 F.3d at 529,

courts reviewing denials of Rule 12(c) motions on immunity grounds also have

jurisdiction, under Iqbal, to review the sufficiency of the pleadings.

The Defendants also appeal the denial of their claim that the Mississippi

Tort Claims Act (“MTCA”) and state common law immunize them from suit for

violations of state law. Our court has held that “an order denying qualified

immunity under state law is immediately appealable as a ‘final decision,’

provided that ‘the state’s doctrine of qualified immunity, like the federal

doctrine, provides a true immunity from suit and not a simple defense to

liability.’” Cantu v. Rocha, 77 F.3d 795, 803 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Sorey v.

6

Case: 14-60242 Document: 00513116367 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/15/2015

No. 14-60242

Kellett, 849 F.2d 960, 962 (5th Cir. 1988)). “[T]he MTCA contemplates

immunity from both liability and judicial proceedings.” Hinds Cnty. v. Perkins,

64 So. 3d 982, 986 (Miss. 2011) (emphasis added); see also Lampton v. Diaz,

661 F.3d 897, 899 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“The denial of immunity under

Mississippi law, like a denial under federal law, is appealable under the

collateral order doctrine.”). We may therefore review, as a final decision, the

district court’s denial of immunity to the Defendants with respect to Bosarge’s

state law claims.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court’s denial of a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the

pleadings is reviewed de novo. Johnson, 385 F.3d at 529. As noted, “[t]he

standard for dismissal under Rule 12(c) is the same as that for dismissal for

failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).” Id. “To survive a motion to

dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,

to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility

when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Id. “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of

the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ Nor does a complaint suffice if it

tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id.

(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007)); see also

Backe v. LeBlanc, 691 F.3d 645, 648 (5th Cir. 2012) (“[A] plaintiff seeking to

overcome qualified immunity must plead specific facts that both allow the

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the harm

he has alleged and that defeat a qualified immunity defense with equal

specificity.”). We will “accept all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the

7

Case: 14-60242 Document: 00513116367 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/15/2015

No. 14-60242

light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Gines v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 699 F.3d 812,

816 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted).

In considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c),

the court is generally limited to “the contents of the pleadings, including

attachments thereto.” Brand Coupon Network, L.L.C. v. Catalina Mktg. Corp.,

748 F.3d 631, 635 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted) (considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) (applying

the same standard to consideration of matters outside the pleadings in both

the Rule 12(c) and Rule 12(b)(6) contexts). The “pleadings” include the

complaint, answer to the complaint, and “if the court orders one, a reply to an

answer.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). However, we agree with Bosarge that we should

evaluate his claims with reference to his amended complaint, which supersedes

his earlier pleadings. See King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994) (“An

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it of no

legal effect unless the amended complaint specifically refers to and adopts or

incorporates by reference the earlier pleading.”).

We must decide whether, and in what manner, to consider the agents’

affidavits, which were attached to the Defendants’ original motion and were

incorporated by reference into their second motion. The district court never

ruled on Bosarge’s motion to strike these affidavits, 3 and it is unclear whether

the district court considered the affidavits in denying the Defendants’ motion

for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment. We have held that

“[d]ocuments that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered

part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint and are

central to her claim.” Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285,

3 The district court treated that motion as moot after granting Bosarge’s motion for

leave to file an amended complaint.

8

Case: 14-60242 Document: 00513116367 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/15/2015

No. 14-60242

288 (5th Cir. 2004). Given the similarities in the analyses under Rule 12(c) and

Rule 12(b)(6), we will apply the same rule to documents attached to the

Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Horsley v. Feldt, 304

F.3d 1125, 1134 (11th Cir. 2002).

Bosarge’s amended complaint borrows a number of facts from the agents’

affidavits, while disputing other claims made in these affidavits. The

Defendants argue that Bosarge, by relying on these affidavits, “has elected to

incorporate” them into his amended complaint. Bosarge counters that “[w]hile

the amended complaint refers to various portions of the affidavits, it never

‘incorporates’ them.” Because the amended complaint relies substantially on

the affidavits, we believe these affidavits should be considered as part of the

pleadings, such that the motion need not be treated as one for summary

judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) (“If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or

12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the

court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule

56.”). 4 However, while the affidavits may be considered as an aid to evaluating

the pleadings, they should not control to the extent that they conflict with

Bosarge’s allegations. We distinguish these affidavits from contracts and

medical records attached to a complaint, which we have held generally trump

contradictory allegations in the complaint. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Riley

v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 355 F.3d 370, 377 (5th Cir. 2004); Nishimatsu

Constr. Co. v. Hous. Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975). Accepting

4 Given that the Defendants opposed discovery throughout the proceedings below, and

the district court stayed discovery, it would be inequitable for our court to treat the

Defendants’ motion as one for summary judgment. See Benchmark Elecs., Inc. v. J.M. Huber

Corp., 343 F.3d 719, 726 (5th Cir.) (holding that the district court plainly erred in treating

the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as a motion for summary judgment

without allowing discovery, noting that the plaintiff was “deprived of a full and fair

opportunity to defend against summary judgment”), modified on other grounds on denial of

reh’g by 355 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2003).

9

Case: 14-60242 Document: 00513116367 Page: 10 Date Filed: 07/15/2015

No. 14-60242

the Defendant-agents’ unilateral statements as true would deprive Bosarge of

the presumption of truth to which he is entitled at this stage of the litigation.

See N. Ind. Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc. v. City of South Bend, 163 F.3d 449,

455–56 (7th Cir. 1998) (noting that while a “blanket adoption rule makes sense

in the context of an attached contract” or other binding agreement, it “would

be contrary to the concept of notice pleading” to apply such a rule “in the case

of letters written by the opposition for what could be self-serving purposes”);

see also Carrier Corp. v. Outokumpu Oyj, 673 F.3d 430, 441–42 (6th Cir. 2012)

(refusing to accept as true all findings contained in a European Commission

decision, attached to a motion to dismiss, but rather allowing the plaintiff to

“draw facts from the . . . decision to provide a ‘starting point’ and then use those

facts to construct a theory that differs from or even contradicts that of the

[European Commission]”); Scanlan v. Tex. A&M Univ., 343 F.3d 533, 537 (5th

Cir. 2003) (suggesting that even where a document attached to a motion to

dismiss is incorporated into the pleadings, the district court still must

“construe the plaintiffs’ factual allegations in the light most favorable to the

plaintiffs”). We therefore do not accept as true all allegations in the agents’

affidavits, but rather consider these affidavits to better understand Bosarge’s

amended complaint, while ensuring that Bosarge does not misrepresent the

agents’ statements.

I. Federal Law Claims

To evaluate the Defendants’ argument that Bosarge’s amended

complaint is insufficient, we begin by considering the legal principles that

govern this case. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675. To overcome the qualified

immunity defense, Bosarge must plead that the agents violated a clearly

established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person

would have known. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231–32 (2009).

Bosarge alleged that the agents violated his Fourth and Fourteenth

10

Case: 14-60242 Document: 00513116367 Page: 11 Date Filed: 07/15/2015

No. 14-60242

Amendment rights by causing him to be prosecuted, arrested, and detained

without probable cause and without due process of law. First, we find that

Bosarge’s allegation that he was “prosecuted . . . without probable cause” fails

to state a claim because our court has held that “no . . . freestanding

constitutional right to be free from malicious prosecution exists.” Castellano v.

Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939, 945 (5th Cir. 2003) (en banc). In addition, although the

Fourteenth Amendment is relevant because it applies the Fourth Amendment

to the states, Bosarge’s claims of unlawful arrest and detention should be

analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and not under the Fourteenth

Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See Cuadra v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 626

F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2010) (“Cuadra’s Fourteenth Amendment claims are

based on alleged pretrial deprivations of his constitutional rights and, under

the holding in Albright, such claims should be brought under the Fourth

Amendment.”) (citing Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 274 (1994) (plurality

opinion)); Blackwell v. Barton, 34 F.3d 298, 302 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that

while the plaintiff alleged that her arrest and detention violated both the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, her claim was “properly considered

under the Fourth Amendment, the more specific constitutional right

implicated by her allegations”); see also Castellano, 352 F.3d at 953 (“The

initiation of criminal charges without probable cause may set in force events

that run afoul of explicit constitutional protection—the Fourth Amendment if

the accused is seized and arrested, for example . . . .”).

Clearly established Fourth Amendment law at the time of the agents’

conduct provided that an arrest must be based on probable cause. See, e.g.,

Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton, 568 F.3d 181, 206 (5th Cir. 2009). Probable cause

exists when “the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge . . . are

sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in

believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is

11

Case: 14-60242 Document: 00513116367 Page: 12 Date Filed: 07/15/2015

No. 14-60242

committing, or is about to commit an offense.” Id. at 204 (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted). Although generally “a grand jury

indictment . . . itself establishes probable cause,” Campbell v. City of San

Antonio, 43 F.3d 973, 976 (5th Cir. 1995), we here examine the alleged pre-

indictment events because Bosarge claims that the grand jury proceedings

were tainted by Fulton’s misrepresentations. See McAllister v. Desoto Cnty.,

Miss., 470 F. App’x 313, 319 n.4 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). 5 Important here

is the well-established rule that reasonable mistakes by police officers, even

leading to the arrest of the wrong person, do not implicate the Fourth

Amendment. See Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530, 536, 539 (2014)

(noting that the Fourth Amendment tolerates objectively reasonable

mistakes); Blackwell, 34 F.3d at 304 (holding that an officer could not be held

liable under § 1983 for a Fourth Amendment violation for arresting the wrong

person, pursuant to a valid warrant, where “no inference can be drawn that

[the officer] knew or believed he was or likely was arresting someone other

than” the person named in the warrant); see also McAllister, 470 F. App’x at

319–20 (holding that officers who erroneously added the plaintiff’s information

to a suspect’s case file did not violate the Fourth Amendment, noting that the

officers’ conduct was “objectively reasonable,” and that there was no evidence

that they acted “intentionally or maliciously”).

With these principles in mind, we now consider the sufficiency of

Bosarge’s amended complaint. We first identify the allegations that are not

entitled to the assumption of truth. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680. We will not

assume the truth of Bosarge’s claim that the officers “acted intentionally or

5 Because we ultimately find that Bosarge has not adequately alleged that a Fourth

Amendment violation occurred, we need not consider the Defendants’ argument that the

grand jury and detention proceedings break the causal chain between the agents’ conduct

and any subsequent violation. See Cuadra, 626 F.3d at 813.

12

Case: 14-60242 Document: 00513116367 Page: 13 Date Filed: 07/15/2015

No. 14-60242

recklessly in falsely identifying” him as the person whom they witnessed

meeting with Isom in the Best Buy parking lot. The Supreme Court and our

court have found similar claims to be too conclusory to survive a motion to

dismiss without further allegations. See id. at 680–81 (declining to assume the

truth of the conclusory allegation that petitioners “‘knew of, condoned, and

willfully and maliciously agreed to subject [respondent]’ to harsh conditions of

confinement ‘as a matter of policy, solely on account of [his] religion, race,

and/or national origin and for no legitimate penological interest’” (second

alteration in original) (citation omitted)); Morin v. Caire, 77 F.3d 116, 121 (5th

Cir. 1996) (dismissal proper where the complaint alleged that an officer “‘knew,

or should have known, that the statements of [a witness] were false,’ without

pleading factual allegations indicating that [the] statement[s] are indeed false,

or facts indicating that no reasonable police officer would have believed [the]

statement[s]”). We also will not assume the truth of Bosarge’s bare assertion

that the officers identified his photograph simply to reinforce their previously-

formed conclusion that the suspect was named Charles Bosarge. See Peñalbert-

Rosa v. Fortuño-Burset, 631 F.3d 592, 595 (1st Cir. 2011) (“[S]ome allegations,

while not stating ultimate legal conclusions, are nevertheless so threadbare or

speculative that they fail to cross ‘the line between the conclusory and the

factual.’” (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 n.5)).

We next consider Bosarge’s well-pleaded factual allegations to determine

if they plausibly support his claim of an intentional or reckless

misidentification. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681. Bosarge raises a plausible

inference that the identification was erroneous: he alleged that he was not the

suspect in the Best Buy parking lot, that Isom identified another person as

that suspect, and that the charges against him were dismissed. However, not

all mistakes are reckless or intentional. The agents’ knowledge that

individuals named Mindi and Charles Bosarge were connected to the drug deal

13

Case: 14-60242 Document: 00513116367 Page: 14 Date Filed: 07/15/2015

No. 14-60242

does not alone suggest that the agents identified Bosarge simply to reinforce a

previously-formed conclusion. In addition, Bosarge did not expressly allege

that the Defendants knew, before the photographic identification, that the

person in the photograph was named Charles Bosarge.

Bosarge’s counsel acknowledged at oral argument that his pleadings

hinge on the allegation that the man identified by Isom, “whether Tillman or

someone else,” “does not look enough like the Plaintiff so that the Plaintiff

could be reasonably mistaken for him.” While we accept as true Bosarge’s claim

of a difference in appearance, Bosarge’s characterization of the identification

as unreasonable is a conclusion not entitled to the presumption of truth. See

id. at 680. In addition, without further allegations regarding the dissimilarities

between Bosarge and the man Isom identified, Bosarge has not plausibly

established that the identification was unreasonable, let alone reckless or

knowingly false. Because a reasonable mistake does not implicate the Fourth

Amendment, Bosarge fails to state a claim. The agents are entitled to qualified

immunity, and we need not decide their claim of absolute immunity under

Rehberg.

At oral argument, Bosarge’s counsel requested limited discovery on the

ground that he strongly suspected that exculpatory evidence exists. But

suspicion alone is not enough: federal pleading rules “do[] not unlock the doors

of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.” Id. at

678–79. Indeed, “[o]ne of the most salient benefits of qualified immunity is

protection from pretrial discovery, which is costly, time-consuming, and

intrusive.” Backe, 691 F.3d at 648.

In the analogous Rule 12(b)(6) context, our court has ordered the district

court to dismiss insufficient pleadings where the plaintiff has had an

opportunity to plead his best case. See Geter v. Fortenberry, 849 F.2d 1550,

1559 (5th Cir. 1988) (“[W]e would normally order the district court to grant

14

Case: 14-60242 Document: 00513116367 Page: 15 Date Filed: 07/15/2015

No. 14-60242

[the] motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, if we were to conclude that

[the plaintiff] has had the opportunity to plead his best case.”). Bosarge has

had three opportunities to provide sufficient factual detail: his initial

complaint, his Rule 7 reply, and his amended complaint. Indeed, Bosarge’s

counsel stated to the district court: “Everything we have and we can marshal

at this stage of the proceedings . . . is contained in our amended complaint.”

Bosarge has had an opportunity to plead his best case, and his claims under

federal law should be dismissed.

II. State Law Claims

The Mississippi Tort Claims Act “provides the exclusive civil remedy

against a governmental entity and its employees for acts or omissions which

give rise to a suit.” City of Jackson v. Sutton, 797 So. 2d 977, 980 (Miss. 2001)

(citation omitted). The Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics has been found to be a

state entity within the language of the MTCA. Lippincott v. Miss. Bureau of

Narcotics, 856 So. 2d 465, 469 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). The MTCA provides the

following general waiver of sovereign immunity: “[T]he immunity of the state

and its political subdivisions from claims for money damages arising out of the

torts of such governmental entities and the torts of their employees while

acting within the course and scope of their employment is hereby waived . . . .”

Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-5(1). However, that waiver is subject to various

exceptions. The discretionary function exception, which the Defendants argue

applies here, provides:

A governmental entity and its employees acting within the course

and scope of their employment or duties shall not be liable for any

claim . . . [b]ased upon the exercise or performance or the failure

to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part

of a governmental entity or employee thereof, whether or not the

discretion be abused . . . .

15

Case: 14-60242 Document: 00513116367 Page: 16 Date Filed: 07/15/2015

No. 14-60242

Id. § 11-46-9(1)(d). Immunity attaches to discretionary functions (requiring

judgment or discretion) but not to ministerial functions (imposed by statute,

regulation, or other binding directive). See Brantley v. City of Horn Lake, 152

So. 3d 1106, 1113–1115 (Miss. 2014) (en banc); Harris ex rel. Harris v. McCray,

867 So. 2d 188, 191 (Miss. 2003) (en banc). In general, “acts performed in

furtherance of a discretionary function or duty are themselves entitled to

immunity.” Brantley, 152 So. 3d at 1113. However, “narrower duties

encompassed in a broad discretionary function may be rendered ministerial

through statute or regulation.” Id. “[T]he plaintiff bears the burden of proving

that the narrower function or duty at issue has lost its discretionary-function

immunity.” Id. at 1115.

In the absence of guidance from the Mississippi Supreme Court, we make

an Erie guess as to whether the discretionary function exception applies here.

See Keen v. Miller Envtl. Grp., Inc., 702 F.3d 239, 243 (5th Cir. 2012). Our own

unpublished caselaw and Mississippi intermediate state court precedent

indicate that the function of investigating criminal activity is discretionary.

See McAllister, 470 F. App’x at 322–23 (affirming the application of

discretionary function immunity to a claim that an officer failed to investigate

the case properly); Estate of Carr ex rel. Macfield v. City of Ruleville, 5 So. 3d

455, 458 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (upholding the application of discretionary

function immunity to “basic investigative decisions” by a police chief, including

“the decision of what type of investigation to conduct prior to the execution of

the warrant”). Although a statute or regulation may render ministerial a

particular duty within a broad discretionary function, Bosarge has not carried

his burden of identifying any such statute or regulation, even though he had

an opportunity to do so in his amended complaint, filed after the Defendants

claimed the discretionary function exception. Bosarge argues on appeal that

discretionary function immunity does not apply because “a law enforcement

16

Case: 14-60242 Document: 00513116367 Page: 17 Date Filed: 07/15/2015

No. 14-60242

officer does not have the discretion to falsely or recklessly accuse someone of a

crime he didn’t commit.” However, as explained above, Bosarge’s amended

complaint does not adequately allege that the misidentification was reckless

or knowing. See City of Clinton, Ark. v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 632 F.3d 148,

155 (5th Cir. 2010) (noting that federal pleading rules apply in diversity cases).

We therefore find that discretionary function immunity protects both the

Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics and the individual agents from suit for the

alleged violations of state law.

CONCLUSION

Bosarge has not stated a claim that the Defendants violated his federal

constitutional rights, and the Mississippi Tort Claims Act immunizes the

Defendants from suit under state law. Because we hold that the district court

erred in denying the Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, we do

not consider the Defendants’ argument that the district court should have

granted their motion for summary judgment. We REVERSE the district court’s

denial of the Defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. We

REMAND with instructions to dismiss Bosarge’s claims.

17