Newcome v. Hernando Cnty. Sheriff's Office

645 F.Supp.3d 1308

James R. NEWCOME and Umama J. Newcome, Plaintiffs, v. HERNANDO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 8:21-cv-2171-TPB-TGW

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

Signed December 13, 2022

James R. Newcome, Spring Hill, FL, Pro Se.

Umama J. Newcome, Spring Hill, FL, Pro Se.

Bobby G. Palmer, Jr., Hilyard, Bogan & Palmer, PA, Orlando, FL, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART DEFENDANTS' AMENDED CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO DISMISS

TOM BARBER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on "Defendants' Consolidated Motions to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint with Memorandum of Law," filed on July 14, 2022. (Doc. 61). Plaintiffs James R. Newcome and Umama J. Newcome filed a response in opposition to the motion on August 4, 2022. (Doc. 62). After reviewing the motion, responses, court file, and the record, the Court finds as follows:

Background

Plaintiffs James and Umama Newcome bring suit against numerous deputy sheriffs, in their individual capacities, following a SWAT-team raid on their home. According to the allegations of the second amended complaint, on September 14, 2018, Plaintiffs claim that Mr. Newcome went to assist an elderly, ill neighbor. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Newcome believed a younger man sitting in a truck outside of Mr. Newcome's home pulled a gun on him, so Mr. Newcome "harmlessly disarmed" the man of what he believed to be a handgun. But seconds later, after Mr. Newcome had begun walking toward the elderly neighbor's door, he realized that the "gun" was actually a black cell phone and returned it to the man. Plaintiffs claim that this man never called 911 or told any law enforcement officer that his cellphone had been stolen, or that he had been robbed, and he did not ask to press charges. None of these events took place in the presence of any law enforcement officers.

Nonetheless, Plaintiffs allege that later that evening/morning, on September 15, 2018, at around 1:07 a.m., the ten individual Defendants - deputies employed by the Hernando County Sheriff's Office - participated in a home seizure, which included launching 10 teargas shells into Plaintiffs' home, shattering three large windows and setting their curtains on fire. Plaintiffs claim that the deputy sheriffs had no warrant to arrest them, no probable cause to support arrest, and there were no exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless home seizure.

On February 2, 2022, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint as a shotgun pleading and for failure to state claims. (Doc. 46). On February 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, asserting six claims for relief. Defendants moved to dismiss. (Doc. 54). The Court held a hearing to address this matter on May 17, 2022. (Doc. 58). On June 8, 2022, the Court dismissed the amended complaint, granting leave to amend. (Doc. 60). On June 30, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the operative second amended complaint, asserting federal claims against the individual officers.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). "Although Rule 8(a) does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' it does require 'more than labels and conclusions'; a 'formulaic recitation of the cause of action will not do.' " Young v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 18-62468, 2018 WL 7572240, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 18-62468-CIV, 2019 WL 1112274 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2019) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, factual allegations must be sufficient "to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court's scope of review is limited to the four corners of the complaint. St. George v. Pinellas County, 285 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002). However, a document attached to the pleading as an exhibit or referred to in the complaint may be considered if it is central to the plaintiff's claim and the authenticity of the document is not challenged. See Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 116 F.3d 1364, 1369 (11th Cir. 1997) ("Where the plaintiff refers to certain documents in the complaint and those documents are central to the plaintiff's claim, then the Court may consider the documents part of the pleadings for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal [ . . . ]"). Furthermore, when reviewing a complaint for facial sufficiency, a court "must accept [a] [p]laintiff's well pleaded facts as true, and construe the [c]omplaint in the light most favorable to the [p]laintiff." Rickman v. Precisionaire, Inc., 902 F. Supp. 232, 233 (M.D. Fla. 1995) (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974)). "[A] motion to dismiss should concern only the complaint's legal sufficiency and is not a procedure for resolving factual questions or addressing the merits of the case." Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, No. 8:09-cv-1264-T-26TGW, 2009 WL 10671157, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2009) (Lazzara, J.).

As Plaintiffs in this case are proceeding pro se, the Court more liberally construes the pleadings. Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). However, a pro se plaintiff must still conform to procedural rules, and the Court does not have "license to act as de facto counsel" on behalf of a pro se plaintiff. United States v. Padgett, 917 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th Cir. 2019).

Analysis

Counts 1, , , , ,

Qualified Immunity

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity and ask the Court to address this issue first. As a threshold matter, the Court finds that Defendants were acting in the scope of their employment and discretionary authority at the relevant times. As such, Plaintiffs must overcome Defendants' right to claim qualified immunity. See Cornett v. City of Lakeland, No. 8:06-cv-2386, 2008 WL 2740328, at *7 (M.D. Fla. July 10, 2008).

"Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability." Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 237, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (internal quotation omitted). Consequently, it is important to resolve questions of immunity at the "earliest possible stage in litigation." Id. at 231, 129 S.Ct. 808. A qualified immunity defense may be raised in a motion to dismiss and resolved prior to discovery. See, e.g., Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991); Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 646 n.6, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); Corbitt v. Vickers, 929 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2019); Barbee v. Naphcare, Inc., 216 F. App'x 851, 853 (11th Cir. 2007). Generally, it is appropriate to dismiss a complaint on qualified immunity grounds "when the complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established right." Corbitt, 929 F.3d at 1311 (citing St. George v. Pinellas Cty., 285 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002)).

As the United States Supreme Court has explained,

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Qualified immunity balances two important interests - the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably. The protection of qualified immunity applies regardless of whether the government official's error is a mistake of law, a mistake of fact, or a mistake based on mixed questions of law and fact.

Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231, 129 S.Ct. 808 (internal quotations and citations omitted). To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must establish (1) the allegations make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct. Id. at 232, 129 S.Ct. 808 (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001)); Corbitt, 929 F.3d at 1311. However, courts may exercise their discretion when deciding which of the two prongs should be addressed first, depending upon the unique circumstances in each particular case. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236, 129 S.Ct. 808; Corbitt, 929 F.3d at 1311. In fact, a court "may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not 'clearly established' by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported right exists at all." See Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 665, 132 S.Ct. 2088, 182 L.Ed.2d 985 (2012).

"For a right to be clearly established, 'the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.' " Corbitt, 929 F.3d at 1311 (quoting Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034). After all, officials are not obligated "to be creative or imaginative in drawing analogies from previously decided cases," and a general "awareness of an abstract right . . . does not equate to knowledge that [an official's] conduct infringes the right." Id. at 1311-12 (quoting Coffin v. Brandau, 642 F.3d 999, 1015 (11th Cir. 2011)). A plaintiff may show that a constitutional right is clearly established by showing: "(1) a 'materially similar case'; (2) pointing to a 'broader clearly established principle' that controls 'the novel facts of the situation;' (3) or demonstrating that the conduct involved in the case 'so obviously violates the constitution that prior case law is unnecessary.' " Lindbloom v. Manatee...