Huggins v. Sch. Dist. of Manatee Cnty.
| Decision Date | 07 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 8:22-cv-1183-WFJ-TGW |
| Parties | ARTHUR HUGGINS, Plaintiff, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF MANATEE COUNTY, a Florida Governmental Entity; MANATEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, a Florida Governmental Entity; CYNTHIA SAUNDERS, in her official capacity and also, individually; PAUL DAMICO, in his official capacity and also, individually; MIKE BARBER, in his official capacity and also, individually; and ADAM WOLLARD, in his official capacity and also, individually, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
This matter comes before the Court on five Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Mike Barber, Paul Damico, Cynthia Saunders, the School Board of Manatee County,[1] and Officer Adam Wollard. Dkts. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44. Plaintiff Arthur Huggins filed responses in opposition. Dkts. 51, 56, 57, 58, 61. Upon careful consideration, the Court grants-in-part Defendants' motions. Specifically the motions are granted to the extent they seek dismissal of Plaintiff's federal claims. The Court further declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims.
The Court set forth the factual background of this case in its prior order finding Plaintiff's original complaint to be a shotgun pleading. Dkt. 32. Because Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Dkt. 37, asserts a handful of new factual allegations, the Court will recount the underlying facts in their entirety.
Plaintiff is a Black resident of Bradenton, Florida. Dkt. 32 ¶¶ 5, 20. The City of Bradenton sits in Manatee County, where public schools are governed by Defendant School Board of Manatee County (the “School Board”). The School Board is headed by Defendant Superintendent Cynthia Saunders. Id. ¶ 8. Defendant Paul Damico serves as the School Board's Chief of Security, and Defendant Mike Barber is employed as the School Board's Communications Director. Id. ¶ 9-10. Defendant Adam Wollard, a police officer with the Bradenton Police Department, provided security at the School Board's meetings during the time period relevant to this action. Id. ¶ 11.
As an active community leader, Plaintiff regularly attended the School Board's 2019 meetings to voice his opinions on community issues. Id. ¶¶ 40-41. Plaintiff contends that, upon realizing that its 2019 meetings were largely attended by Black citizens, the School District began to increase security measures by installing metal detectors, increasing police presence, and requiring bag checks in an effort to deter Black citizens from attending. Id. ¶¶ 19, 44. Plaintiff also alleges that the School Board attempted to deter Black citizens from speaking at its meetings by moving the time for public comment to the end of each agenda and requiring citizens who wished to speak to sign up to do so beforehand. Id. ¶ 19. Around this time, Plaintiff notes that he publicly criticized the School Board in an interview with a local news station. Id. ¶¶ 46-47.
On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff attended a meeting held by the School Board. Id. ¶¶ 20. When Plaintiff first arrived at the meeting room, he claims Mr. Barber discouraged him from entering and told him no seats were available. Id. ¶ 22. Plaintiff states that he pointed out multiple open seats and was ultimately able to attend the meeting. Id. ¶¶ 23-24. Plaintiff was present at the meeting for approximately four hours. Id. ¶ 24. After experiencing back pain Plaintiff contends that he eventually chose to stand against the meeting room's back wall in a nondisruptive manner. Id. ¶¶ 25-26.
While standing against the wall, Plaintiff states he was approached by Mr. Damico, who told Plaintiff that Ms. Saunders needed Plaintiff to “either have a seat or leave the meeting.” Id. ¶ 27. Though Plaintiff contends that he informed Mr. Damico of his back pain, Mr. Damico notified Officer Wollard of Plaintiff's refusal to take a seat. Id. ¶¶ 28-29. Upon being instructed to leave the meeting room by Officer Wollard, Plaintiff “complied because he had no other choice” and exited to the building's main lobby. Id. ¶¶ 30-31. While standing in the lobby, Plaintiff contends that Officer Wollard “placed his hand on his back” and forced him out of the building. Id. ¶ 31. Plaintiff later describes this contact as a forceful push. Id. ¶ 118. Plaintiff was not allowed to return to the meeting to make a public comment. Id. ¶ 32. Plaintiff contends that the School Board's written policy “only provides discretion to the Chairman to remove a citizen deemed disorderly” and that the School Board's presiding officer, Chairman Dave Miner, never asked that Plaintiff be removed from the meeting. Id. ¶¶ 33-34.
At a School Board meeting the following week, Ms. Saunders purportedly apologized to the School Board for Plaintiff's removal. Id. ¶ 36. Plaintiff asserts that Ms. Saunders stated that “the public is welcome inside this chamber, we will do better to make sure everyone is safe, and everyone feels that they are welcome.” Id. Charlie Kennedy, the Vice Chair of the School Board, then apologized to Plaintiff for being removed from the November 12th meeting and stated that it would “not happen to [Plaintiff] or anybody else again.” Id. ¶ 39. The same day, School Board member Scott Hopes allegedly expressed that the School Board did not follow its policies and procedures when removing Plaintiff from the meeting. Id. ¶ 37. Mr. Hopes therefore made a motion to schedule an executive session for the discussion of meeting safety and protocols. Id. ¶ 38.
On December 10, 2019, the School Board held the requested executive session to discuss safety and security. Id. ¶ 49. There, the School Board watched a video created by Mr. Barber, the School Board's Communications Director. Id. ¶¶ 49, 52. Plaintiff states that the video contained footage of “public board meetings across the nation depicting citizens and board members engaged in violent confrontations” and included a clip of Plaintiff being removed from the November 12th meeting. Id. ¶¶ 50-51. Plaintiff alleges that the video asserted that Plaintiff's removal from the meeting prompted the School Board to enact increased security protocols, despite the implementation of those heightened measures occurring prior to November 12th. Id. ¶ 50. Plaintiff states that the video was ultimately used to suggest that Plaintiff and other citizens were dangers to the School Board. Id. ¶ 51. Mr. Barber later provided the video to the Sarasota Herald Tribune, a local newspaper, . Id. ¶ 52. Plaintiff asserts that the video has remained published online since December 27, 2019. Id.
Based on the above allegations, Plaintiff filed his nineteen-count Amended Complaint against the above-styled Defendants. In Count 1, Plaintiff brings a false imprisonment claim against Officer Wollard in his official capacity and the School Board. Id. ¶¶ 53-60. Count 2 asserts another false imprisonment claim against Officer Wollard, Ms. Saunders, and Mr. Damico in their individual capacities. Id. ¶¶ 61-69. Count 3 is a claim against Ms. Saunders, Mr. Damico, and Officer Wollard in their individual and official capacities for violations of Article I, Sections 9 and 12 of the Florida Constitution. Id. ¶¶ 70-77. In Count 4, Plaintiff brings a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 illegal seizure claim against Officer Wollard in his official capacity and the School Board. Id. ¶¶ 78-89. Plaintiff's Count 5 alleges a similar § 1983 illegal seizure claim against Ms. Saunders, Mr. Damico, and Officer Wollard in their individual capacities. Id. ¶¶ 90-98.
Next, Count 6 is an assault claim against Mr. Damico and Officer Wollard in their individual capacities. Id. ¶¶ 99-104. Count 7 asserts an assault claim against Officer Wollard in his official capacity and the School Board. Id. ¶¶ 105-13. Plaintiff's Count 8 is a battery claim against the School Board. Id. ¶¶ 114-20. In Count 9, Plaintiff brings a § 1983 free speech claim against Ms. Saunders, Mr. Damico, and Officer Wollard in their individual capacities. Id. ¶¶ 121-32. Count 10 is a similar § 1983 free speech claim against Officer Wollard in his official capacity and the School Board. Id. ¶¶ 133-49.
In Count 11, Plaintiff asserts a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim against Ms. Saunders, Mr. Damico, and Officer Wollard in their individual capacities. Id. ¶¶ 150-65. Plaintiff's Count 12 asserts a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim against Mr. Barber in his individual capacity.[2] Id. ¶¶ 166-72. Count 13 is a § 1983 equal protection claim against the School Board, Id. ¶¶ 173-82, and Count 14 is the same claim against Ms. Saunders in her individual capacity, Id. ¶¶ 183-93. In Count 15, Plaintiff brings a § 1981 claim against the School Board. Id. ¶¶ 194-98. Plaintiff's Count 16 asserts another § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim against Ms. Saunders and Mr. Damico in their individual capacities, Officer Wollard in both his individual and official capacities, and the School Board. Id. ¶¶ 199-211.
In Count 17, Plaintiff asserts that the School Board violated section 286.0114, Florida Statutes. Id. ¶¶ 212-21. Count 18 alleges a violation of Article I, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution by Ms. Saunders, Mr. Damico, and Officer Wollard in their individual and official capacities. Id. ¶¶ 222-34. Finally, Plaintiff's Count 19 is a civil conspiracy claim against Ms. Saunders, Mr. Damico, and Mr. Barber in their individual capacities. Id. ¶¶ 235-43.
Defendants now separately move to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 8(a), 10(b) and on the grounds of qualified immunity, sovereign immunity, and/or a failure to establish municipal liability. Dkts. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44.
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss...
To continue reading
Request your trial