Castro v. Stephonson
| Decision Date | 29 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 20-61351-CV-DIMITROULEAS |
| Parties | FELIX CASTRO, Plaintiff v. DEPUTY STEPHONSON, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
This Cause comes before the Court upon the pro se Plaintiff's civil rights complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff raises excessive force claims against several detention deputies employed by the Broward County Sheriff's Office for an incident that occurred while in their custody. [Id.]. Plaintiff is a pre-trial detainee currently housed at Broward County Main Jail. The Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis and established a debt in the amount of $350.00. [ECF Nos. 6, 7].
The case has been referred to the Undersigned for the issuance of all preliminary orders and any recommendations to the district court regarding dispositive motions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); and S.D. Fla. Admin. Order 2019-2.
For the reasons stated herein, the Undersigned recommends that this matter PROCEED against all defendants.
Under either 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) or 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a complaint must be dismissed if the court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Wright v. Miranda, 740 F. App'x 692, 694 (11th Cir. 2018). In reviewing the complaint under § 1915(e), the court takes the allegations as true and construes them in the most favorable light. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (11th Cir. 2003); Maps v. Miami Dade State Attorney, 693 F. App'x 784, 785 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam), cert. denied, Maps v. Fernandez-Rundle, 138 S. Ct. 450 (2017). Complaints filed by pro se prisoners are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]" Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
In order to "avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain factual allegations that, when accepted as true, allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct." Wright v. Miranda, 740 F. App'x at 694 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing Waldman v. Conway, 871 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). Although a pro se pleading isliberally construed, it must still "suggest that there is some factual support for a claim." Id.
To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that he was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law. Griffin v. City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001). Under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), courts may dismiss as frivolous claims that are "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory" or "whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001). The same standards govern dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). The court may dismiss a complaint that fails "to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
Although federal courts give liberal construction to pro se pleadings, courts "nevertheless, have required them to conform to procedural rules." Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (quotation omitted). Rule 8 requires that a pleading contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showingthat the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). There is no required technical form, but "each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct." Id. at 8(d)(1). The statement must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Additionally, each separate claim should be presented in a separate numbered paragraph, with each paragraph "limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances." Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).
Plaintiff brings this § 1983 action against the following four defendants, in their individual capacities: Deputy Stephonson, Deputy Buggs, Deputy Font, and Deputy Peires.
In the early morning hours of October 4, 2019, the detention deputies escorted Plaintiff to an area between the main jail facility and the courthouse "known as the bridge." [ECF No. 1 at 2]. This area contains holding cells for inmates where they remain until they are called for their court hearings or trials. [Id.]. After several hours, Plaintiff asked an unnamed deputy for permission to use another restroom rather than the one in his cell because the cell was crowded with other detainees. [Id.]. The deputy gave him permission, but when Plaintiff saw the other restroom was unsanitary, he changed his mind and walked out of the cell. [Id. at 2-3]. On his way back to his holding cell, Defendant Stephonson confronted him. [Id. at 3].Plaintiff maintains that English is not his first language; therefore, he could not understand the commands given to him by the officer. [Id.]. Plaintiff thought that Stephonson was telling him to go to his cell, so Plaintiff started to walk there. [Id.].
According to Plaintiff, Stephonson grabbed him by his shirt collar and dragged him down the hall and around a corner. [Id.]. Plaintiff alleges that he tried to tell Stephonson he was choking him but Stephonson became angry and slammed Plaintiff onto his back, causing pain. [Id.]. While still on the floor, Stephonson placed his knee into Plaintiff's stomach, grabbed him by the throat, and screamed in his face. [Id.]. At this point, the other deputies, Defendants Buggs, Font and Peires, came to the area. [Id.]. Stephonson then lifted Plaintiff off the ground by his neck and collar; and another deputy handcuffed him. [Id.]. Stephonson again grabbed Plaintiff by the collar causing Plaintiff to choke; and he dragged Plaintiff back around the corner to an empty holding cell. [Id. at 4]. Once in the cell, Stephonson pushed Plaintiff onto a bench causing his back to hit the wall, grabbed him by the hair, and repeatedly struck Plaintiff on the side of his face and temple. [Id.]. According to Plaintiff, the other deputies surrounded him, encouraged Stephonson, and intimidated Plaintiff by daring him to fight back. [Id.]. Stephonson then repeatedly punched Plaintiff's right eye several times. [Id.].
When the beating ended, two of the deputies grabbed Plaintiff by the arms and lifted him so that Defendant Font could remove the handcuffs. [Id.]. Once thehandcuffs were removed, Plaintiff stumbled to another bench; and Font, in Spanish, ordered him to sit down. [Id.].
Plaintiff was bleeding and Stephonson, again, came over to Plaintiff and punched him in the right eye and screamed at him. [Id. at 4-5]. Then, all the defendants left Plaintiff alone in the cell. Plaintiff asserts that he was bleeding from his nose, ears, and mouth and that he spat out pieces of his broken teeth. [Id. at 5]. Plaintiff claims that he yelled out and kicked at the door to get medical attention, but no one came to assist him. [Id.]. Stephonson, eventually, appeared; and when Plaintiff told Stephonson he would report the beating, Stephonson said he "did not give a f---." Font came to the cell, opened it, cuffed Plaintiff's hands in front of him, and took pictures of Plaintiff with his cell phone. [Id.]. Then, Font put Plaintiff back in the cell while still cuffed. [Id.].
Later, "an unknown deputy" took Plaintiff out of the cell and escorted him to the infirmary at the main jail. [Id.]. A nurse cleaned the blood from Plaintiff's face and informed him that he would be scheduled to see a doctor. [Id. at 6]. Plaintiff was then returned to his housing unit. [Id.].
Plaintiff maintains that it was obvious when he looked in the mirror that he had "multiple wounds" to his face and "his left eyeball was crooked and lazy." [Id.]. The next day, he noticed his vision and the pain were worse. [Id.]. Vision out of his left eye was "blurry," and when closed, he could "see small white bright lookingspots and shadows." [Id.]. He also became depressed and began to hear voices. [Id.]. Plaintiff claims that for weeks he informed various nurses that he needed to see a doctor. [Id.]. A month later, he had a fellow inmate write a "sick call" request because he could not read or write in English. [Id.]. "Within a week or two," he was seen by a doctor and prescribed Lexapro, Abilify, ibuprofen, and muscle relaxants. [Id. at 6-7].
Plaintiff claims that his defense attorney has copies of the cellphone photographs taken by Deputy Font. [Id. at 7]. He also claims that the abuse incident was recorded on videotape. [Id.]. According to Plaintiff, Michael Masold, another inmate, witnessed the incident. Plaintiff claims he filed grievances against the defendants. [Id.].
Plaintiff sues Stephonson for excessive force and the remaining defendants for their roles in encouraging the assault. [Id. at 8]. Plaintiff alleges he has endured pain, suffering, physical injuries, and emotional distress as a result of the incident. [Id. at 9]. Plaintiff seeks $300,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages against each defendant. [Id.].
Whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force constituting "the unnecessary and wanton infliction...
To continue reading
Request your trial