Bryant Davis v. Daniel Lang
706 F. App'x 551
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Bryant Davis worked as a subcontractor for ARC Appliance in 2011; customer Charlotte Rivers paid repairs for a refrigerator that she later alleged remained broken and was damaged beyond repair.
- Rivers gave statements and receipts claiming payments totaling about $1,509 to Jonathan Davis and Davis (plaintiff); she also provided a BSH invoice concluding the unit could not be repaired and criticizing prior repairs.
- Sergeant Daniel Lang of the Rockdale County Sheriff’s Office investigated, reviewed Rivers’s written statements and the BSH invoice, and (mistakenly) attributed some internet reports and warrants relating to Jonathan to plaintiff and misstated having spoken to the BSH technician.
- Lang obtained arrest warrants (theft by deception — misdemeanor; criminal damage to property — felony). The felony charge was later dismissed; the misdemeanor proceeded but was ultimately nolle prossed.
- Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for malicious prosecution under Georgia law; the district court granted Lang summary judgment. On appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed as to the state-law malicious prosecution claim, holding Lang entitled to official immunity because no evidence of "actual malice" existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lang acted with "actual malice" (defeating official immunity) in obtaining the warrant | Davis: Lang lacked probable cause and made false/misleading statements (including perjury) and acted to collect a civil debt, supporting an inference of actual malice | Lang: He reasonably relied on Rivers's statements and the BSH invoice; mistakes in investigation/testimony were inadvertent and do not show deliberate intent to do wrong | No actual malice; official immunity applies — summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether probable cause existed for theft by deception warrant | Davis: Insufficient evidence, payments were not to him, and Lang relied on false info | Lang: Rivers’s written complaint plus the BSH invoice corroborated that repairs were inadequate/damaged, creating probable cause | Probable cause existed for the misdemeanor theft-by-deception charge |
| Whether investigative mistakes (misattributing reports, misstating phone call) negate immunity | Davis: Inaccuracies show reckless or willful misconduct | Lang: Mistakes were inadvertent, and the material facts came from the BSH invoice and Rivers’s statements | Mistakes did not demonstrate deliberate intent to harm; they do not establish actual malice |
| Whether arrest was to collect a civil debt (implying improper motive) | Davis: Warrant was effectively to force restitution | Lang: No evidence he sought arrest to collect payments or coerce repayment | No evidence of civil-debt motive; cannot infer actual malice |
Key Cases Cited
- Cameron v. Lang, 549 S.E.2d 341 (Ga. 2001) (official immunity principle for discretionary acts)
- Anderson v. Cobb, 573 S.E.2d 417 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (distinguishing "actual malice" from malice for malicious-prosecution elements)
- Murphy v. Bajjani, 647 S.E.2d 54 (Ga. 2007) (definition of actual malice as deliberate intent to do wrong)
- Merrow v. Hawkins, 467 S.E.2d 336 (Ga. 1996) (actual malice excludes reckless disregard)
- Shavers v. City of Atlanta, 756 S.E.2d 204 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014) (actual proof of innocence can support actual malice)
- Bateast v. Dekalb County, 572 S.E.2d 756 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (officer’s knowledge of exculpatory proof defeats probable cause and can imply actual malice)
- Jordan v. Mosely, 487 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2007) (arrest procured to collect a civil debt can show improper motive and actual malice)