Drew v. Shouse

• Decision Date: 16 August 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:17-cv-991-J-34JBT
• Parties: TERRELL N. DREW, individually, Plaintiff, v. JESSICA N. SHOUSE, individually, and MIKE WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Duval County, Florida, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

TERRELL N. DREW, individually, Plaintiff, v. JESSICA N. SHOUSE, individually, and MIKE WILLIAMS,in his official capacity as Sheriff of Duval County, Florida, Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-991-J-34JBT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

August 16, 2018

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Jessica N. Shouse's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. 19, Shouse Motion), and Defendant Mike Williams' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. 20, City Motion), both filed on December 4, 2017. In the motions, the Defendants request that the Court dismiss Plaintiff Terrell N. Drew's Amended Complaint in which Drew asserts false arrest claims against Shouse and Williams for violation of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Doc. 17, Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Amended Complaint), filed November 21, 2017. Drew opposes the Defendants' motions. See Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 21, Plaintiff's Response), filed December 18, 2017. Accordingly, the motions are ripe for review.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept the factual allegations set forth in the complaint as true. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n 1 (2002); see also Lotierzo v. Woman's World Med. Ctr., Inc., 278 F.3d 1180, 1182 (11th Cir. 2002). In addition, all reasonable inferences should be drawn in favor of the plaintiff. See Omar ex. rel. Cannon v. Lindsey, 334 F.3d 1246, 1247 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Nonetheless, the plaintiff must still meet some minimal pleading requirements. Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomm., 372 F.3d 1250, 1262-63 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Indeed, while "[s]pecific facts are not necessary," the complaint should "'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Further, the plaintiff must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. "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." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

Notably, in considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), "the court ordinarily may not look beyond the pleadings." Crawford's Auto Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 6:14-cv-6016-Orl-31TBS, 2016 WL 3144103, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2016) (citations omitted). However, the Court may consider documents and exhibits attached to the Plaintiff's complaint where those attachments are undisputed in their authenticity and central tothe Plaintiff's claims. See Arthur v. Thomas, 674 F.3d 1257, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012) (collecting cases). See also Ferguson v. Dunn, No. 1:16-v-00272, 2018 WL 2656990, *1 n.1 (E.D. Tex. April 27, 2018) (video disc attached to complaint considered part of plaintiff's pleadings); Gersbacher v. City of New York, 134 F. Supp. 3d 711, 720 (S.D. N.Y. 2015) (video evidence considered in context of 12(b)(6) motion where "video has either been offered by the plaintiff as part of its pleadings or the plaintiff has incorporated the video by reference after the defendant introduced the video"); Gordon v. Invisible Children, Inc., No. 14 Civ. 4122(PGG), 2015 WL 5671919, *1 n.1 (S.D. N.Y. Sept. 24, 2015) (video attached to complaint considered by court in context of 12(b)(6) motion).

Additionally, the "plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted); see also BellSouth Telecomm., 372 F.3d at 1262 (explaining that "conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal") (citations and quotations omitted). Indeed, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions," which simply "are not entitled to [an] assumption of truth." See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Thus, in ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must determine whether the complaint contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).

II. BACKGROUND¹

On or about August 24, 2013, Drew hosted a party at his residence in Jacksonville, Florida. Amended Complaint at ¶ 9. During the party, Drew asked Timothy R. Davis, one of the party guests, to leave because Davis allegedly had been physically inappropriate with Drew's fiancé and had acted in a physically aggressive manner toward Drew. Id. at ¶ 10. Davis left Drew's home, but returned within a few minutes, at which time, Drew again told Davis he had to leave and escorted Davis out of the front door of Drew's home. Id. at ¶ 11. Davis "then became irate and physically aggressive, making physical contact with . . . female party guests who were attempting to calm" him. Id. at ¶ 13. Then,

[w]ithout warning or provocation, . . . Davis began to physically, repeatedly and forcefully strike [Drew] with closed fists [on] his face and body. . . . Davis also began to pin [Drew] into a corner between a wall and the front door of [Drew's] home. At all times material, . . . Davis was substantially taller, heavier and stronger than [Drew] . . . . Fearing imminent death or great bodily harm, [Drew] reasonably believed that using or threatening to use deadly force was necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm . . . . [Drew] then pulled a gun he had been possessing in a side-holster and fired one (1) shot into Mr. Davis' face.

Id. at ¶ ¶ 14-15, 18-19.

The facts alleged in Drew's Amended Complaint are supplemented by a video recording which captured the minutes prior to, during, and after the shooting incident. See Amended Complaint at ¶ 28, Exhibit A.² The video recording, while lacking audio, shows Davis, wearing a striped shirt, leaving the party from Drew's front porch at the 3:21minute mark, after spending a period of time on the front porch in a seemingly agitated conversation with female party guests. Then, about three and a half minutes later, at the 7:03 minute mark of the recording, Davis again exits the front door of Drew's house, this time being accompanied by Drew, who was wearing a cowboy hat.³ For the next thirty-two seconds, the men engage in what appears to be a progressively adversarial conversation. Then, at the 7:35 minute mark of the recording, Davis punches Drew in the head and face eight times in rapid succession. As Davis punches Drew, Drew assumes a crouched and defensive position, and four seconds into the assault, at the 7:39 minute mark of the video, reaches for his gun. While Davis is still striking Drew, another party guest exits the home at the 7:40 minute mark of the recording, and seeks to restrain Davis. In the second or so that it takes the party guest to pull Davis away from Drew, Drew assumes an upright position and fires a shot at Davis, hitting him in the face.

Soon after the incident, emergency personnel arrived at Drew's home and transported Davis to a local hospital where he received medical care. Id. at ¶ 22. Shouse, a detective for the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, id. at ¶ 5, then arrived at the scene. Id. at ¶¶ 22-23. There, she "surveyed [Drew's] home and made contact with several witnesses." Id. at ¶ 23. At that time, Drew and "several others present told . . . Shouse that . . . Drew had acted in self-defense." Id. at ¶ 25. Nonetheless, Shouse detained Drew and transported him to the police station. Id. at ¶ 24. There, while being questioned by Shouse, Drew again explained that "he had shot . . . Davis in self-defense to protect himself from . . . Davis' violent attack." Id. at 26. Drew also informed Shouse that he hada video surveillance system at his home that "captured the entire incident." Id. at ¶ 27. While still keeping Drew detained at the police station, Shouse "retrieved and viewed the video recording." Id. at ¶ 28. After reviewing the video recording, Shouse arrested Drew, without a warrant, for attempted murder. Id. at ¶ 31. After his arrest, Drew paid for a $50,003.00 surety bond. Id. at ¶ 33. Ultimately, the State Attorney's Office "did not file an information against [Drew] for attempted murder," although Drew's criminal case remained open for six months, from August 2013 to March 2014. Id. at ¶ 35.

Prior to the events in this case, in 2005, the State of Florida enacted Florida Statutes section 776.032, which extends immunity from arrest, detention, and prosecution, to individuals who used force to defend themselves or their homes. See Fla. Stat. § 766.032(1). The law directs that law enforcement should "not arrest [a] person for using or threatening to use deadly force unless [law enforcement] determines that there was probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful." Id. at § 766.032(2).⁴ Drew alleges that despite "enactment of section 766.032, the JacksonvilleSheriff's Office has failed to change their policies, procedures, and general orders with respect to the use of force investigations." Amended Complaint at ¶ 49. Moreover, he asserts that

[t]o date, the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office [JSO], led by Mike Williams, permits its law enforcement officers to effect arrests of suspects without first establishing probable cause to believe that a use of force was not justified [under Florida law.] In the twelve years since

...