Calvin C. Caldwell, Jr. v. Fort Lauderdale Airport Task Force, 673 F. App'x 906

Caldwell alleges that in Feb. and Dec. 2012 he was stopped at Fort Lauderdale and Miami airports by law-enforcement officers who detained him, searched his carry-on luggage, and seized cash he was carrying.
At Fort Lauderdale officers counted cash and gave Caldwell a receipt for $23,340 (he claimed $25,000); they retained his ID and phones temporarily and used racial epithets and threats.
At Miami officers again seized cash, had Caldwell count and initial amounts, and issued a receipt for $5,790 after a dog sniff; DOJ later told him to file a claim for the funds.
Caldwell filed a § 1983 suit alleging Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations; a magistrate judge recommended dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) based on an available post‑deprivation remedy (conversion/forfeiture). Caldwell initially agreed with that recommendation.
The government separately filed and then voluntarily dismissed a civil forfeiture action for the seized currency; after the forfeiture dismissal the district court adopted the R&R and dismissed Caldwell’s § 1983 complaint without prejudice.
On appeal the Eleventh Circuit treated the complaint as asserting two claims: (1) a Fourteenth Amendment procedural-due-process claim for unlawful retention (defeated by adequate post‑deprivation remedies) and (2) an independent Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure/search claim, which the district court had not addressed and which the Court found potentially viable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Caldwell’s procedural due‑process claim (continued retention of property) states a § 1983 claim	Caldwell says retention of seized funds violated due process	Defendants point to adequate post‑deprivation remedies (conversion action; forfeiture)	Dismissal of the due‑process claim was proper because adequate state post‑deprivation remedies existed
Whether the searches/detentions/seizures violated the Fourth Amendment	Caldwell alleges unlawful detention, search of luggage, and seizure of cash without probable cause	Defendants relied on the earlier dismissal and availability of forfeiture remedies to argue no § 1983 relief	The court held the Fourth Amendment claim was not considered by the district court and, liberally construed, may state a § 1983 claim; vacated and remanded for further proceedings
Whether Caldwell invited the dismissal by agreeing with the magistrate judge’s R&R	Defendants argue Caldwell’s agreement bars appellate challenge (invited error)	Caldwell relied on his belief that relief was available in the forfeiture action and later sought to proceed after forfeiture dismissal	Court rejected invited‑error/bar on appeal due to ambiguity in R&R and Caldwell’s contingent/changed position; appeal allowed
Standard of review for sua sponte § 1915 dismissal	N/A (procedural)	N/A	Court reviews de novo whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

Case v. Eslinger, 555 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2009) (adequate post‑deprivation remedy defeats procedural due‑process claim for retention of property)
Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2002) (de novo review of sua sponte § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals)
Byrd v. Stewart, 811 F.2d 554 (11th Cir. 1987) (distinguishing unlawful retention claims from independent Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure claims)
Gilmere v. City of Atlanta, 774 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir. 1985) (en banc) (Fourth Amendment claims are not defeated by availability of post‑deprivation remedies)
Ford ex rel. Estate of Ford v. Garcia, 289 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2002) (doctrine of invited error bars challenges to rulings a party invited)
Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 2014) (pro se filings are liberally construed)
Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2013) (reviewing magistrate judge legal conclusions de novo when appropriate)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (use of excessive force and application of Fourth Amendment standards)