L.S. v. Peterson

• Decision Date: 12 December 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 18-cv-61577-BLOOM/Valle
• Parties: L.S., a minor by her mother and next friend YASMIN LORENA HERNANDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCOT PETERSON, et al, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

L.S., a minor by her motherand next friend YASMIN LORENA HERNANDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCOT PETERSON, et al, Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-61577-BLOOM/Valle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

December 12, 2018

OMNIBUS ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon five Motions to Dismiss filed by DefendantsAndrew Medina("Medina"), ECF No. [16]; Superintendent Robert Runcie("Runcie"), ECF No. [27]; Sheriff Scott Israel("Israel") and Captain Jan Jordan("Jordan"), ECF No. [33]; Broward County(the "County"), ECF No. [40]; and Scot Peterson("Peterson"), ECF No. [42](collectively, the "Motions").The Court has carefully reviewed the Motions, all opposing and supporting submissions, the record in this case and the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised.For the reasons set forth below, the Motions filed by Medina, Runcie, Israel and Jordan and the County are granted, and the Motion filed by Peterson is granted in part and denied in part.

I.BACKGROUND

This case arises in part from the tragic events that took place on February 14, 2018 at Marjory StonemanDouglas High School (the "High School") in Parkland, Florida.By now, the events surrounding the school shooting are ubiquitous; nevertheless, the Court sets forth the relevant facts as alleged by Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs are fifteen students present during the school shooting perpetrated by Nikolas Cruz("Cruz").As a result, the students allege that each suffered psychological injuries.SeeFirst Amended Complaint, ECF No. [8]¶¶ 5-20.Cruz, a former student, traveled to the High School in an Uber carrying a duffel bag and backpack.Id.¶ 61.Upon arrival, he entered the school grounds and proceeded to the 1200 building, where he shot and killed seventeen students and school staff members, and injured seventeen others over the course of approximately six minutes.Id.

Throughout the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs detail numerous shortcomings in the official response to the shooting by Defendants.Plaintiffs allege, in pertinent part, that Medina, a school monitor, recognized Cruz as a danger when he arrived at the High School, but rather than attempt to stop Cruz, he only radioed a colleague to report a suspicious person entering the school grounds with a backpack.Id.¶¶ 63-64.Even after the shooting began, Medina did not call a code because he did not see a gun.Id.¶ 67.Peterson, a trained law enforcement school resource officer, remained outside the school building while Cruz was inside shooting students and staff.Id.¶¶ 70-76.Captain Jordan, the commander of the scene, prevented emergency responders from entering the 1200 building to confront Cruz or render aid to victims.Id.¶ 77.Plaintiffs further allege that Israel, Runcie, and the County either have a policy of allowing "killers to walk through a school killing people without being stopped," or that they carry out such inadequate training of the individuals expected to respond in such situations, such as Medina, Peterson, and Jordan, that they should be liable for violations of Plaintiffs' substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.Id.¶¶ 87-89; Count IV.

In Count V, Plaintiffs assert a First Amendment Claim for retaliation against Medina based upon reports by two unnamed female students, concerning inappropriate sexual comments and conduct by Medina during school hours.Seeid.¶ 156.Plaintiffs allege that, as a result, the School Board suspended Medina on the students' behalf.¶ 157.In retaliation for the unnamed students' report, Medina allowed Cruz, who he knew to be dangerous, to enter the school grounds uninhibited and perpertrate the shooting.Id.¶¶ 158-165.

Plaintiff T.M. individually also asserts three claims against Peterson and the County for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure with respect to his detention in the High School office (Count I), an allegedly unlawful search of his backpack (Count II), and seizure of money in his backpack (Count III), on the morning of the shooting.

In the Motions, Defendants seek dismissal of the First Amended Complaint for various reasons, including failure to state a claim, qualified immunity, lack of standing, and shotgun pleading.

II.LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules requires a pleading to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).Although a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations," it must provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555(2007);seeAshcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678(2009)(explaining that Rule 8(a)(2)'s pleading standard "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation").In the same vein, a complaint may not rest on "'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.'"Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678(quotingTwombly, 550 U.S. at 557(alteration in original)).The Supreme Court has emphasized that "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"Id.(quotingTwombly, 550 U.S. at 570);see alsoAm. Dental Assoc. v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1288-90(11th Cir.2010).

When reviewing a motion to dismiss, a court, as a general rule, must accept the plaintiff's allegations as true and evaluate all plausible inferences derived from those facts in favor of the plaintiff.SeeChaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1337(11th Cir.2012);Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. S. Everglades Restoration Alliance, 304 F.3d 1076, 1084(11th Cir.2002);AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Infinity Fin. Grp., LLC, 608 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 1353(S.D. Fla.2009)("On a motion to dismiss, the complaint is construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all facts alleged by the non-moving party are accepted as true.");Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.Although the court is required to accept as true all allegations contained in the complaint, courts"are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation."Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555;Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.In addition, "courts may infer from the factual allegations in the complaint obvious alternative explanations, which suggest lawful conduct rather than the unlawful conduct the plaintiff would ask the court to infer."Am. Dental Ass'n, 605 F.3d at 1290(citingIqbal, 556 U.S. at 682).

III.ANALYSIS

A.Count IV of the First Amended Complaint is a Shotgun Pleading

As a threshold matter, the Court notes that Plaintiffs engage in a quintessential form of shotgun pleading because they incorporate two separate claims against all Defendants in Count IV—one based upon violation of Fourth Amendment rights and the other based upon violation of Fourteenth Amendment rights.SeeWeiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313,1321-24(11th Cir.2015)(setting forth the four most common types of shotgun pleadings).The Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly and unequivocally condemned shotgun pleadings as a waste of judicial resources."Shotgun pleadings, whether filed by plaintiffs or defendants, exact an intolerable toll on the trial court's docket, lead to unnecessary and unchannelled discovery, and impose unwarranted expense on the litigants, the court and the court's parajudicial personnel and resources.Moreover, justice is delayed for the litigants who are 'standing in line,' waiting for their cases to be heard."Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1356-57(11th Cir.2018)(quotingCramer v. Fla., 117 F.3d 1258, 1263(11th Cir.1997)).

Upon this basis alone, Count IV of the First Amended Complaint is due to be dismissed.Nevertheless, in the interests of conserving judicial resources, the Court considers the merits of the theories asserted throughout the First Amended Complaint.

B.Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment Claim Does Not Implicate a Constitutional Right (Count IV)

In Count IV, which comprises the bulk of Plaintiffs' claims, Plaintiffs assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of their due process rights pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendement based upon their "clearly established right to be [free] from deliberate indifference to substantial known risks and threats of injury."ECF No. [8]¶ 143.Plaintiffs maintain that Defendants had a constitutional duty to protect them from school shooters like Cruz.As such, the Defendants' failure to protect them violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights."[T]o prevail on a § 1983 claim against a local government entity, a plaintiff must prove both that her harm was caused by a constitutional violation and that the government entity is responsible for that violation."Wyke v. Polk Cty. Sch. Bd., 129 F.3d 560, 568(11th Cir.1997).Defendants argue, in pertinent part, that Plaintiffs' due process claim fails because there is no constitutional duty toprotect students from harm inflicted by third parties.Because the determination of this issue is dispositive, the Court considers it first.

"The Supreme Court's interpretation of [the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment] explicates that the amendment provides two different kinds of constitutional protection: procedural due process and substantive due process."McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550, 1555(11th Cir.1994).¹"The substantive component of the Due Process Clause protects those rights that are 'fundamental,' that is rights that are 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'"Id. at 1556(quotingPalko v. Conn., 302 U.S. 319, 325(1937))."The Due Process Clause protects individuals against arbitrary exercises of government power, but only the most egregious official conduct can be said to be arbitrary in the constitutional sense."T.W. ex...