[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11452 ____________________

DESHAWN GERVIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PAMELA FLORENCE, TANDRIA MILTON, In their individual capacities,

Defendants-Appellants,

HOKE HAMPTON, In her individual capacity,

Defendant. USCA11 Case: 23-11452 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2025 Page: 2 of 55

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11452

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-00067-LAG ____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, ABUDU, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge: DeShawn Gervin has not been a model citizen. But he did do at least one thing right. As Gervin’s sole condition of probation, a Georgia court kicked him out of its jurisdiction and banned him from returning. And Gervin followed that instruction. He moved to North Carolina. But he didn’t stay out of trouble there, either. North Caro- lina imprisoned Gervin for breaking and entering, larceny, and rob- bery and kidnapping. Soon after, a probation officer with the Georgia Department of Community Supervision learned of Gervin’s North Carolina transgressions. And she sought a warrant for his arrest in Georgia. In support, she swore that Gervin had “failed to report” and “ab- sconded from probation supervision” in violation of his probation conditions. Another probation officer under her supervision then petitioned to revoke Gervin’s probation based on his failure to re- port. USCA11 Case: 23-11452 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2025 Page: 3 of 55

23-11452 Opinion of the Court 3

After the probation officer obtained the warrant, police of- ficers in North Carolina arrested Gervin on the Georgia warrant. Then they extradited Gervin to Georgia. And Gervin spent 104 days in jail waiting for the court to resolve his probation-revocation charges. But as we’ve recounted, the Georgia court’s only probation condition for Gervin required him never to reenter its judicial cir- cuit. And that’s the one thing he had not done. So however else Gervin had broken the law, he had not violated his Georgia proba- tion. For that reason, the Georgia court concluded that the State failed to show that Gervin had violated his probation. So it ordered Gervin’s release. After his release, Gervin sued the two probation officers un- der 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged violations of his Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The probation officers moved for summary judgment, and the district court denied their motion. We now affirm the district court’s ruling. When we view the evidence in the light most favorable to Gervin as the non-mov- ing party, the probation officers recklessly swore that Gervin had violated his Georgia probation, even though it was clear that he had not. That violated Gervin’s Fourth and Fourteent