Tarpley v. Miami-Dade Cnty.

212 F.Supp.3d 1273

John TARPLEY and Fredesvinda Tarpley, Plaintiffs

v.MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Florida, and others, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 15-20997-Civ-Scola

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed July 20, 2016

Filed July 21, 2016

Gregory Darnell Curtis, The Law Office of Gregory D. Curtis, P.A., Wendell Terry Locke, Locke Law, P.A., Plantation, FL, for Plaintiffs.

Erica Sunny Shultz Zaron, Miami, FL, for Defendants.

Order on the Defendants' Summary Judgment

Robert N. Scola, Jr., United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Miami-Dade County, Hector Sanchez, Jose Sanchez, and Joe Williams's Motion for Summary Judgment as to all counts in Plaintiffs John and Fredesvinda Tarpley's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 38). (Mot., ECF No. 63.) Having reviewed the record, the parties' filings, the relevant law, and for the reasons explained below, the Court grants in part the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 63) as to Counts 1 through 7 and Count 11 of the Second Amended Complaint. Because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to the remaining state law claims, the Court dismisses without prejudice Counts 8, 9, 10, and 12 of the Second Amended Complaint and denies in part the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 63) as to those Counts.

1. Relevant Facts

On March 13, 2011, Plaintiff John Tarpley went to the USA Flea Market to secure a booth in order to sell women's accessories. (Defs.' SMF ¶ 1, ECF No. 64.) Tarpley parked his car at a car wash across the street from the main part of the Flea Market and then proceeded to the Flea Market. (Id . ¶¶ 2-3.) The Defendants assert that the Flea Market owns the car wash. (Id . ¶ 2.) However, Tarpley asserts, and provides the property records in support, that while the Flea Market and the car wash have the same owners, the Flea Market does not own the car wash. (Pl.'s SMF ¶ 2; Pl.'s Composite Exhibit, ECF No. 71-1.)

Once in the Flea Market, Tarpley began speaking to a woman he knew when an unidentified woman walked up to Tarpley and punched him in the mouth. (Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 4-5.) Afterwards, Tarpley spoke to Chief Turner, the now-deceased chief security officer of the Flea Market, who told Tarpley to call the police regarding the woman who punched him in the face. (Id . ¶¶ 6-7.) Tarpley then called the police and proceeded to wait outside of the Flea Market for their arrival. (Id . ¶ 7.)

Miami-Dade County Police Officer Withers responded to Tarpley's call at 12:29 p.m., and Tarpley told Officer Withers that he was the victim of a battery by a Flea Market employee. (Id . ¶ 9.) Officer Withers testified that Chief Turner told him that Tarpley was previously asked to leave the Flea Market. (Id . ¶ 10; Withers Depo. 6:22-25, ECF No. 64-3.) But Tarpley denies that Chief Turner previously told him to leave. (Pl.'s SMF ¶ 10.) Tarpley does admit that Officer Withers later told him that Chief Turner "did not want [Tarpley] back on the property" and asked that Tarpley leave after his car wash was complete. (Pl.'s SMF ¶ 11-12; Tarpley Depo. 171:11-23; 172:24-173:22, ECF No. 64-1.) Officer Withers issued Tarpley a trespass warning, told Tarpley that he could be arrested if he returned to the Flea Market property, and instructed Tarpley to leave the Flea Market property. (Defs.' SMF ¶ 12.) Finally, Officer Withers gave Tarpley a "case card" relating to his alleged battery. (Id . ¶ 13.) Later, Officer Withers completed a written offense incident report relating to the alleged battery and referencing the trespass. (Id. )

Tarpley could not immediately leave, however, because Tarpley's car remained at the car wash and was in the middle of being washed. (Id . ¶ 14.) In the Second Amended Complaint, Tarpley alleged that "a vendor at the Flea Market was detailing his car." (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 19.) Tarpley asked Officer Withers to accompany him to the car wash, but Officer Withers refused and told Tarpley to ask Chief Turner. (Defs.' SMF ¶ 15.) Officer Withers then left the Flea Market at 1:16 p.m. (Id .) Tarpley then asked Chief Turner "did you not tell me to call the police?" and in response, Chief Turner told Tarpley to get off of his property and then put his hand on his gun. (Id . ¶ 16.)

Instead of getting his car, Tarpley retreated across the street, called the police a second time, and asked that they send a supervisor to the scene. (Id . ¶ 17.) This time, Defendants Officers Hector Sanchez and Jose Sanchez, arrived on scene at 1:45 p.m. (Id . ¶ 18.) The dispatch did not reference Tarpley or a car wash location and neither officer knew Tarpley. (Id . ¶¶ 20.) Upon arrival at the front of the Flea Market, the officers encountered Chief Turner who told them that (1) the police had issued Tarpley a trespass warning and (2) Tarpley was located near his car at the car wash. (Id. ¶¶ 22-23.)

Tarpley had observed the officers arrive at the Flea Market, but the parties dispute whether the officers ever told Tarpley to return to the Flea Market. (Id . ¶ 24.) The Defendants point to Tarpley's written statement, which he previously identified as something he wrote (Tarpley Depo. 169:6-11), as evidence of Tarpley's motive for returning to the Flea Market. (Defs.' SMF ¶ 24.) In Tarpley's statement, he said that "when he [saw] the officers pull up [he] went back to the Flea Market because [he] thought it was a supervisor officer." (ECF No. 64-10.) Tarpley insists that the officers called him over to the Flea Market. (PL.'s SMF ¶ 24.) However, previously Tarpley agreed that his written statement did not mention anywhere that the officers called him over to the Flea Market. (Tarpley Depo. 185:5-8, ECF No. 64-1.) Despite his previous failure to mention the officers instructing him to return, he later testified that they motioned him onto the Flea Market property. (Id . at 186:6-25.)

Tarpley told the officers that he wanted to file a complaint against Chief Turner for failing to do his job and for threatening Tarpley. (Id . 25.) In front of the officers, Chief Turner approached Tarpley, poked Tarpley with his finger, and stated "[m]an, I have you removed from my motherf***ing property." (Id . ¶ 26.) At that time, Tarpley stated that he had a right to be on the Flea Market property and asked the police officers why they were not arresting Chief Turner for assault. (Id . ¶¶ 27-28.)

In response, Officer Hector Sanchez called dispatch to determine who issued Tarpley's trespass warning, spoke to Officer Withers to confirm the trespass warning (Id. 30-31), and then checked his computer to see if Tarpley had any outstanding warrants. (Id . ¶¶ 32.)

Officer Jose Sanchez testified that he spoke to Officer Hector Sanchez regarding whether they should arrest Tarpley and that they "didn't see a resolution to the problem ... [and] that [Tarpley] needed to be arrested." (J. Sanchez Depo., 7:18-23, ECF No. 64-5.; H. Sanchez Depo. 9:4-14, ECF No. 64-6 ("We were discussing to arrest him.")). Tarpley disputes this fact and cites to a transcript of deposition taken in 2011 in Tarpley's criminal case where Officer Jose Sanchez testified that they did not decide to arrest Tarpley until they "caught up to [Tarpley] at the station." (ECF No. 72-1 at 29:2-10.) But that does not contradict the police officers' testimony that they discussed arresting him at the flea market.

The Defendants state that Tarpley then got in his car and drove away (Id . ¶ 34), which Tarpley disputes, but he does not offer any evidence to the contrary. Tarpley himself testified that he "got [his] car on [his] own and [he] left, and [he] went. Because if [he] wouldn't have, they would have arrest [ed] [him] then." (Tarpley Depo. 202:22-24, ECF No. 64-2.)

After leaving the Flea Market, Tarpley went to the Northside Police Station to file a complaint. (Defs.' SMF ¶ 36.) He entered the station through the front door into the lobby. (Id . ¶¶ 38-39.) Once there, Tarpley spoke to Officer Crum through a glass window behind a counter. (Id . ¶ 39.) Defendant Sergeant Joe Williams was behind the glass window with Officer Crum. (Id . ¶ 40.) Sergeant Williams was unaware of anything that had occurred at the Flea Market earlier that day. (Id .) Tarpley told Officer Crum that he wanted to speak to a supervisor, but the parties dispute whether his hands were on the counter when he made that request. (Id . ¶ 41.)

The police station is within eyesight of the Flea Market, so Officers Jose and Hector Sanchez followed Tarpley to the station and arrived one minute after Tarpley had arrived. (Id . ¶ 37.) The officers entered through the rear of the station and saw Tarpley in the lobby. (Id . ¶ 42.) The parties dispute what transpired next. (Id . ¶ 43-45, Pl.'s SMF 43-45, ECF No. 71.)

Officers Jose and Hector Sanchez testified that they told Tarpley that Tarpley was under arrest and to put his hands behind his back (Jose Sanchez Depo. 11:2-10, ECF No. 64-5; Hector Sanchez Depo. 12:7-11, ECF No. 64-6) and that Tarpley did not respond to the verbal command to put his hands behind his back (2011 Hector Sanchez Depo. 41:13-18, ECF No. 64-8). In contrast, Tarpley testified that the officers never told him to put his hands behind his back. (Tarpley Depo. 216:8-10, ECF No. 64-2.)

After Tarpley allegedly refused to put his hands behind his back, according to Officer Jose Sanchez's testimony, Tarpley said "for what?" and "no" and thereafter, the officers flanked Tarpley on each side and each officer grabbed one of Tarpley's arms. (2011 Jose Sanchez Depo. 30:18-27, ECF No. 64-9.) The officers testified that when they grabbed Tarpley's arms, he flinched, tightened up his arm muscles, and started struggling with the officers by moving back and forth. (Id. ; 2011 Hector Sanchez Depo. 41:13-18, ECF No. 64-8.) The officers then choked Tarpley from behind, lifted him up, and directed him to the ground. (Defs.' SMF ¶ 47.) Tarpley struck his face on the ground during the arrest. (Id . ¶ 49.)

However, Tarpley offers a different...