Jerry Frank Townsend v. City of Miami, No. 06-12863 (11th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 06-12863 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED .U .S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DECEMBER 21, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 03-21072-CV-AJ DONALD R. SPARADO, as Limited Guardian for Jerry Frank Townsend, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAMES E. BOONE, individually, BRUCE CHARLES ROBERSON, individually, as former police officer for the City of Miami, Defendants-Appellants. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (December 21, 2006) Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: James E. Boone and Bruce Roberson, former police officers for the City of Miami, Florida, appeal the district court s denial of their motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. They contend that the district court erred because the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 malicious prosecution and Fifth Amendment claims filed by Jerry Frank Townsend were not clearly established law in 1979 when Townsend alleges that he was coerced into confessing, or in 1982 when he entered a guilty plea for murder, resulting in his incarceration.1 They also claim that Townsend s complaint is barred by the statute of limitations. We have considered the briefs and relevant parts of the record, and conclude that the district court properly determined that Townsend s complaint sufficiently pled a malicious prosecution claim. Additionally, we find that Townsend s claims, as stated in his second amended complaint, are not barred by Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 123 S. Ct. 1994, 155 L. Ed. 2d 984 (2003). We note that the district court acknowledged that Boone and Roberson are free to move for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds should discovery show that the use of Townsend s confessions did not violate the Chavez requirements. We also find no merit to the claim that Townsend is barred by the statute of limitations from maintaining his § 1983 action. The order denying the motion to dismiss is therefore AFFIRMED. 1 Following an investigation in 2001, Townsend was exonerated by DNA evidence, and his convictions in both Broward and Dade Counties were set aside. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
