Fla. Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm'n v. Jeffrey
Decision Date | 15 October 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 1D15–1406.,1D15–1406. |
Parties | FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION and Benjamin G. Johnson, individually, Petitioners, v. Timothy JEFFREY, Respondent. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Antony D. Constantini, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Petitioner Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Heath R. Stokley and Kerry A. Parsons of Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., Tallahassee, and Edward A. Dion, Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Petitioner Benjamin G. Johnson.
Marie A. Mattox and Lisa Lambert of Marie A. Mattox, P.A., Tallahassee, for Respondent.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and FWCC officer Benjamin Johnson petition for certiorari review of the order denying their motions for summary judgment based on sovereign immunity and qualified immunity, respectively. We dismiss FWCC's petition because it failed to establish the irreparable harm necessary to obtain certiorari review, but we grant Officer Johnson's petition in part and quash the challenged order insofar as it denied him qualified immunity from the false arrest claim asserted by Respondent under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This case stems from a dropped cup. Although there is conflicting evidence as to what kind of cup it was1 and how it was dropped,2 it is undisputed that Respondent dropped the cup on the side of a road; that Officer Johnson told him several times to pick it up; and that Respondent refused to pick up the cup, cursed at Officer Johnson, and walked away. It is also undisputed that when Officer Johnson attempted to grab Respondent's arm to stop him from walking away so he could issue him a citation for littering, Respondent pushed Officer Johnson's hand away and started fighting with him. Respondent claimed that he did not know that Officer Johnson was a law enforcement officer because he is blind and Officer Johnson did not identify himself as an officer until the physical altercation was well underway.3 Respondent was arrested and charged with battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer with violence, but the criminal charges were subsequently nol prossed.
After the criminal charges were dropped, Respondent filed suit against FWCC and Officer Johnson, asserting common law claims for negligence (against FWCC), battery (against FWCC and Officer Johnson), false arrest (against FWCC and Officer Johnson), malicious prosecution (against Officer Johnson), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (against Officer Johnson). The suit also included a § 1983 claim against Officer Johnson alleging two separate Fourth Amendment violations: false arrest and excessive use of force. FWCC and Officer Johnson asserted various defenses in their answers, including sovereign immunity and qualified immunity, respectively.
FWCC and Officer Johnson filed motions for summary judgment. FWCC asserted that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the battery and false arrest claims based on the facts asserted by Respondent in his deposition, and it argued that the denial of its motion would be "a denial of sovereign immunity." Officer Johnson asserted that he was entitled to qualified immunity from the § 1983 claims and that the other claims against him failed as a matter of law.
The trial court held a hearing on the motions for summary judgment, and at the conclusion of the hearing, the court orally granted the motions.4 However, before the court memorialized its ruling in a written order, Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration in which he argued that summary judgment should be denied because there was a factual dispute as to whether Officer Johnson identified himself as a law enforcement officer before he attempted to detain Respondent as required by section 901.17, Florida Statutes.5 The trial court treated the motion as supplemental argument in opposition to the motions for summary judgment, and after a hearing, the court entered an order denying the motions for summary judgment. The order stated in pertinent part:
FWCC appealed the order to this court and Officer Johnson filed a notice of joinder in the appeal. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in which he argued that the order was not appealable under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vii) and (xi) because the immunity claims asserted in the motions for summary judgment were not denied "as a matter of law." After considering the responses filed by FWCC and Officer Johnson, we converted the appeal to a certiorari proceeding. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(c) (). FWCC and Officer Johnson thereafter filed separate petitions for writ of certiorari seeking review of the trial court's order denying their motions for summary judgment.
"Certiorari is the proper remedy, in limited circumstances, to review a non-final order that is not subject to appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130." AVCO Corp. v. Neff, 30 So.3d 597, 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). However, certiorari is "an extraordinary remedy and should not be used to circumvent the interlocutory appeal rule which authorizes appeal from only a few types of non-final orders." Martin–Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Fla.1987).
To obtain a writ of certiorari, the petitioner must establish "(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal." Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So.2d 812, 822 (Fla.2004) (quoting Bd. of Regents v. Snyder, 826 So.2d 382, 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ); see also Keck v. Eminisor, 104 So.3d 359, 364 (Fla.2012). The latter two elements—which are often collectively referred to as "irreparable harm"—are jurisdictional and must be considered first. See Williams v. Oken, 62 So.3d 1129, 1132 (Fla.2011) ; Elms v. Castle Constructors Co., 109 So.3d 1274, 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ; Parkway Bank v. Ft. Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So.2d 646, 648–49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
The mistaken denial of a motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity—whether based on a determination of law or an erroneous belief that material issues of fact preclude summary judgment on the issue—results in irreparable harm because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit that is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial. See Stephens v. Geoghegan, 702 So.2d 517, 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ( ); see also Tucker v. Resha, 648 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla.1994) ( )(citation and internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, because the challenged order in this case denied Officer Johnson's claim of qualified immunity, he has established the jurisdictional prerequisite of irreparable harm necessary to obtain review of the order. However, as discussed below, Officer Johnson's entitlement to relief from the order depends on whether the order departs from the essential requirements of law.
By contrast, any harm resulting from the erroneous denial of FWCC's motion for summary judgment is not irreparable because, by virtue of the waiver of sovereign immunity in section 768.28, Florida Statutes, FWCC has only limited immunity from the liability that may result from Respondent's suit, not immunity from the suit itself. See Dep't of Educ. v. Roe, 679 So.2d 756, 759 (Fla.1996) ( ); Stephens, 702 So.2d at 527 ( ). Absent irreparable harm, we lack certiorari jurisdiction to review the order denying FWCC's motion for summary judgment and we must dismiss its petition for writ of certiorari. See Elms, 109 So.3d at 1276 n. * (citing Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) ).
In reaching this conclusion, we have not overlooked the decision in O'Brien v. Exposito, 824 So.2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), relied on by FWCC. However, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sarasota Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Dist. v. Venice HMA, LLC
...irreparable harm of the type that would entitle the County to a writ of certiorari. See also Fla. Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm'n v. Jeffrey , 178 So. 3d 460, 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) ("By contrast, any harm resulting from the erroneous denial of FWCC's motion for summary judgment is not......
-
Sarasota Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Dist. & Sarasota Cnty. v. Venice HMA, LLC
...irreparable harm of the type that would entitle the County to a writ of certiorari. See also Fla. Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm'n v. Jeffrey, 178 So. 3d 460, 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) ("By contrast, any harm resulting from the erroneous denial of FWCC's motion for summary judgment is not ......
-
Emerald Coast Utils. Auth. v. Thomas Home Corp.
...to sovereign status and, thus, subject to immunity protections. Of greater significance, the Fourth District cited to Keck, Tucker and Jeffrey in support of contention that the Florida Supreme Court intended in its earlier amendments to rule 9.130(a)(3) to restrict interlocutory review to o......
-
City of Fort Lauderdale v. Hinton
...lost, and directing the rules committee to submit a proposed rule change); see also Fla. Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm'n v. Jeffrey, 178 So. 3d 460, 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (dismissing certiorariPage 8 review of a sovereign immunity claim, recognizing that limited immunity from liabilit......