Davis v. City of Apopka
| Decision Date | 21 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 6:15-cv-1631-Orl-37KRS |
| Citation | 356 F.Supp.3d 1366 |
| Parties | Timothy Allen DAVIS, Sr., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF APOPKA; Robert Manley, III; Randall Fernandez; Nicole Dunn ; Andrew Parkinson; Ruben Torres; Matthew Reindhart; Mark Creaser; and Rafael Baez, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Bryan E. DeMaggio, Elizabeth Louise White, Jesse B. Wilkison, Matthew R. Kachergus, William J. Sheppard, Sheppard, White, Kachergus, & DeMaggio PA, Jacksonville, FL, Charles Edward Emanuel, Jr., The Emanuel Firm, PA, Howard S. Marks, Burr & Forman, LLP, Orlando, FL, James K. Green, Law Office of James K. Green, PA, West Palm Beach, FL, for Plaintiff.
Joseph R. Flood, Jr., Patricia Maria Rego Chapman, Eric J. Netcher, Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, PA, Orlando, FL, Meagan Lindsay Logan, Marks Gray, PA, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendants.
This action arises out of alleged police misconduct following a domestic dispute that resulted in Plaintiff Timothy Allen Davis, Sr. fatally shooting his son. (See Doc. 122 ("Complaint ").) The Court previously granted Defendant City of Apopka's ("City ") motion to dismiss (Doc. 128) and dismissed all of Plaintiff's claims against the City. (Doc. 133 ("MTD Order ").) Plaintiff then appealed the MTD Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded ("Opinion "). Davis v. City of Apopka , 734 F. App'x 616 (11th Cir. 2018).
In its Opinion, the Eleventh Circuit pointed out at least two clear errors this Court committed: First, the failure to appreciate Plaintiff's allegations that the City's Chief of Police Robert Manley ("Chief Manley ") was a final policymaker for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and by personally ordering the alleged unlawful search of Plaintiff's home, this satisfied the requirements for Monell liability on the part of the City to state a claim for the unconstitutional search of Plaintiff's home. See id. at 619–20. Second, application of the "arguable probable cause" standard to evaluate the sufficiency of Plaintiff's false arrest allegations against the City instead of the correct "actual probable cause" standard. See id. at 620–22. With these errors corrected, the case is now back with instruction to re-examine the sufficiency of Plaintiff's Complaint applying the "actual probable cause" standard in light of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, Florida Statutes §§ 776.012 and 776.032. Id. at 619. This Order follows.
Turning again to the plausible allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint, accepted as true, the Court finds that the relevant facts are as follows:1
1. The Altercations
In October 2011, Plaintiff resided in a home with his family—his wife Tarsha Davis ("Mrs. Davis" ), a nine-year-old daughter ("Minor Daughter "), a ten-year-old son ("Minor Son "), and twenty-two-year-old Timothy Allen Davis, II ("Timmy "). (Doc. 122, ¶¶ 21, 22.) Timmy had recently returned to the home after leaving college, where he had played football. (Id. ) Timmy weighed approximately 280 pounds, stood 6'1? tall, and was the father of a young child ("Child "). (Id. )
At the conclusion of a multi-day visit between Timmy and the Child, the Child's mother ("Mother ") arrived at the home to retrieve the Child on October 1, 2011. (Id. ¶¶ 22, 23.) Timmy refused to surrender the Child to the Mother, a dispute ensued, and Plaintiff attempted to reason with Timmy. (Id. ¶¶ 24, 25.) While Timmy argued with Plaintiff, Mrs. Davis placed the Child in the Mother's car. (Id. ¶¶ 26–27.) This action allegedly incensed Timmy, who "charged after Mrs. Davis, yelling and cursing her." (Id. ) To prevent physical harm to Mrs. Davis and the Mother, Plaintiff intervened, and Timmy "walked off down the street" after he threatened to "beat" Plaintiff. (See id. )
Approximately fifteen minutes after the initial altercation, Timmy returned to the home and was advised by Plaintiff and Mrs. Davis that he had to "move out." (Id. ¶ 29.) Timmy responded by going upstairs "angrily" and breaking down in tears. (Id. ) Plaintiff—who was on his way to join his Minor Daughter outside—went upstairs to "calm Timmy down." (Id. ¶ 30.) Timmy was not calmed; rather, he yelled at Plaintiff and "brutally attacked" him by " head-butt[ing]," "football-tackl[ing]," and "slamming" Plaintiff to the tile floor in the upstairs bathroom. (Id. ¶ 31.) Timmy then straddled a "completely defenseless" Plaintiff and repeatedly punched him in the face until Plaintiff bled. (Id. ¶ 32.) During this attack, Plaintiff's head struck the toilet, he landed on the back of his head, his "eyeglasses" were broken and tossed from his face, and his knees were severely injured. (Id. ¶¶ 31–32.)
Mrs. Davis heard this second altercation, ran upstairs, attempted to pull—then eventually coaxed—Timmy off Plaintiff, and finally assisted Plaintiff off the bathroom floor. (Id. ¶¶ 33–34.) Visibly bruised and swollen around his eyes, jaw, and lips, Plaintiff instructed Mrs. Davis to "call the paramedics for his severely injured knees" and face. (Id. ¶¶ 35, 36, 49.) Attempting to distance himself from Timmy and "avoid continued violence," Plaintiff then stumbled downstairs to sit and "wait for the paramedics." (Id. ) Timmy allegedly followed Plaintiff downstairs, so Plaintiff walked to the garage to get away from Timmy. (Id. ¶¶ 36–37.) Because Timmy continued to follow him and was "evidently enraged," Plaintiff then "limped out of the garage" to the driveway where his car was parked. (Id. ¶¶ 37–39.)
Hoping that the mere sight of a firearm "would scare [Timmy] from attacking him again," Plaintiff retrieved a firearm from his car. (Id. ¶ 39.) From less than ten yards away, Plaintiff observed Timmy pace back and forth inside the garage, remove his sweatshirt, throw it to the ground in a "fighting gesture," and then walk "aggressively" toward Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 40.) Panicked, Plaintiff fired a shot in Timmy's direction to "scare him off," but "Timmy continued to advance toward" him. (Id. ¶ 41.) In "self-defense" Plaintiff fired again, and the second shot struck Timmy in the chest. (Id. ¶ 42.) Plaintiff then saw "blood coming from Timmy's upper chest area." (Id. )
Plaintiff called to Mrs. Davis for help and attempted to escort Timmy to Plaintiff's car for transport to the hospital; however, when they neared the car, "Timmy collapsed to the ground." (Id. ¶¶ 43, 44, 48, 53.) Timmy's collapse caused Plaintiff's injured knees to buckle, and Plaintiff "lost his balance," fell on top of Timmy, and was "unable to move because of his injured knees." (Id. ) Mrs. Davis then called 9-1-1 to report Plaintiff's "confrontation with" Timmy where "she believed" Plaintiff had "shot." (Id. ¶¶ 45, 46.) Some of Plaintiff's neighbors—who came to the home in response to the loud noises—allegedly witnessed Plaintiff's position on top of Timmy and the "visible injuries" to Plaintiff's face. (Id. )
2. Police Response
A few minutes after Mrs. Davis's 9-1-1 call, Officers Mark Creaser and Rafael Baez of the Apopka Police Department ("APD ") arrived at the home, followed a few minutes later by Chief Manley. Upon inquiry by Officer Creaser, Plaintiff—still immobilized on top of Timmy—advised that he shot Timmy "because [he] beat me up and kept coming at me" and that the gun was in the front pocket of Plaintiff's pants. Officer Creaser then "handcuffed Plaintiff and recovered the gun."
At the direction of Chief Manley: (a) Officers Creaser and Baez lifted Plaintiff up and took him to the garage; and (b) Timmy, Mrs. Davis, and the Minor Daughter were transported to the Orlando Regional Medical Center ("ORMC "), where Timmy died at 12:36 a.m. on October 2, 2011. Meanwhile, Plaintiff was transported to a different hospital ("FHA "), again at Chief Manley's direction, where Plaintiff remained handcuffed, "under guard," and ignorant of the fact that Timmy was deceased for almost two hours. (Id. ¶¶ 58–60, 62, 63, 87, 107, 141.)
While Plaintiff and Timmy were hospitalized, and Mrs. Davis and the Minor Daughter were at ORMC, the individual Defendants allegedly: (1) conducted a warrantless and illegal search of the home and selectively seized evidence ("Warrantless Search ") ; (2) edited videotape evidence in an attempt to conceal the warrantless search of Plaintiff's home ("Edited Search Tape ") (see id. ¶¶ 76–78); and (3) obtained a search warrant for Plaintiff's home based on Detective Matthew Reindhart's false statements ("False Warrant ") (see id. ¶¶ 82–85).
After Timmy died but before Plaintiff was informed of his death, Plaintiff alleges several other instances of misconduct. First, Officer Creaser advised Plaintiff that he was "under arrest" at FHA for "Attempted First Degree Murder"2 ("False Charge Statement "). Then, without providing Plaintiff Miranda warnings or advising him that Timmy was dead, another officer, Detective Andrew Parkinson, interrogated Plaintiff at FHA and learned the circumstances that explained Timmy's violence and established that the shooting was justified ("Parkinson Interrogation "). (See id. ¶¶ 98, 108–26, 129–30; see also id. ¶ 15.) Last, Detective Parkinson urged Plaintiff—with the impossible promise of visiting Timmy—to record a statement that improperly cast Plaintiff as Timmy's murderer and omitted the exculpatory facts and circumstances ("Recorded Statement "). (See id. ) The individual Defendants then erased portions of the Recorded Statement that revealed the individual Defendants' improper manipulation of Plaintiff. (See id. ¶ 127.)
Plaintiff remained hospitalized and underwent knee surgery as a result of the altercations, and he was discharged by October 7, 2011. (Id. ¶¶ 141–42.) By the time of his discharge, the individual Defendants allegedly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCray v. Deitsch & Wright, P.A.
... ... Weisberg, Weisberg Consumer Law Group, PA, Cooper City, FL, Amorette Rinkleib, Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC, Mesa, AZ, for Plaintiff.Meredith A ... ...
-
Reynolds v. City of Dayton Beach, Case No: 6:18-cv-1921-Orl-28LRH
...probable cause exists depends on the elements of the alleged offense and the particular facts of the case. Davis v. City of Apopka, 356 F. Supp. 3d 1366, 1377 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (quoting Brown v. City of Huntsville, Ala., 608 F.3d 724, 735 (11th Cir. 2010)). Based on the elements of the alleg......