Lenz v. Winburn, No. 93-3340

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore HATCHETT and COX, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON; COX
Citation51 F.3d 1540
PartiesDonald LENZ, Shirley Lenz, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mary WINBURN, individually, for her official acts, and in her official capacity as Investigator for the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Doris Paskewitz, individually, for her official acts, and in her official capacity as Guardian Ad Litem, with the State of Florida, or individually, for acts outside the scope of her official authority, Volusia County, a governmental entity, Elizabeth Lenz, individually, Defendants-Appellees, Robert L. Vogel, Jr., in his official capacity as Sheriff of Volusia County, Florida, W. Piser, in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Volusia County, Florida, M. Lusk, in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Volusia County, Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, an agency of the State of Florida, Guardian Ad Litem Program for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, an agency of the State of Florida, Defendants.
Decision Date12 May 1995
Docket NumberNo. 93-3340

Page 1540

51 F.3d 1540
Donald LENZ, Shirley Lenz, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Mary WINBURN, individually, for her official acts, and in
her official capacity as Investigator for the Florida
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Doris
Paskewitz, individually, for her official acts, and in her
official capacity as Guardian Ad Litem, with the State of
Florida, or individually, for acts outside the scope of her
official authority, Volusia County, a governmental entity,
Elizabeth Lenz, individually, Defendants-Appellees,
Robert L. Vogel, Jr., in his official capacity as Sheriff of
Volusia County, Florida, W. Piser, in his official capacity
as Deputy Sheriff of Volusia County, Florida, M. Lusk, in
his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Volusia County,
Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services,
an agency of the State of Florida, Guardian Ad Litem Program
for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, an agency of the State of
Florida, Defendants.
No. 93-3340.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
May 12, 1995.

Page 1542

Andrew C. Moler, Orlando, FL, for appellants.

Kenneth J. Servay, Appellate Advocacy Program-Tulane Law School, New Orleans, LA, Nina E. Vinik, A.C.L.U. Foundation of Fla., Miami, FL, for amicus curiae ACLU.

Michael Vance Matthews, Blakeney and Alexander, Charlotte, NC, for NCNB Bank.

Edmund T. Woolfolk, Woolfolk, Estex, Keough and Jordan, John E. DuBose, Jr., Orlando, FL, for Winburn.

Paolo G. Annino, Central FL Legal Services, Inc., Sylvia Starbuck, Daytona Beach, FL, for Elizabeth Lenz.

Tura Schnebly Broughton, Asst. County Atty., Legal Department, DeLand, FL, for County of Volusia.

Arthur C. Wallberg, Office of the Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, FL, for Paskewitz.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before HATCHETT and COX, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

COX, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs Donald and Shirley Lenz sued Mary Winburn, Doris Paskewitz, Elizabeth

Page 1543

Lenz, and Volusia County, Florida under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court granted all defendants summary judgment. The Lenzes appeal.

I. Background

A. Facts

Donald and Shirley Lenz (the elder Lenzes or the Lenzes) have a son named Kurt. 1 For a time Kurt Lenz was married to the defendant Elizabeth Lenz. Elizabeth had a son of her own named Ryan. Kurt and Elizabeth together had a daughter named Desirae, whom the elder Lenzes call "Mickey." When Kurt and Elizabeth separated in 1990, nine-year-old Desirae became the subject of a bitter custody fight. Kurt ultimately obtained primary custody. In the autumn of 1990, Desirae lived with her father, who resided in half of a duplex owned by the elder Lenzes. A doorway connected the duplex's two kitchens, effectively making the duplex into one large dwelling. This connection between the duplexes facilitated the elder Lenzes' care for Desirae, whom they often babysat when Kurt was at work.

In September 1990, the elder Lenzes reported to the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) that Elizabeth had abused Desirae and Ryan by pouring dish soap down their throats. HRS assigned the case to Mary Winburn, an investigator. During the next six weeks, Winburn interviewed acquaintances, neighbors, and family of the Lenzes and Elizabeth. She also spoke to Doris Paskewitz, who was appointed Desirae's guardian ad litem in late October 1990. Based on her investigation, Winburn concluded that the accusations against Elizabeth were groundless, but that the elder Lenzes and Kurt abused Desirae.

Accordingly, Winburn resolved to remove Desirae from her father's custody immediately. She arranged to meet Paskewitz at Desirae's school. Winburn notified the principal that she and Paskewitz would arrive at the end of the school day to take Desirae and place her with Elizabeth. Winburn did not, however, apprise the elder Lenzes. Fearing a confrontation, the principal asked the Volusia County Department of Public Safety to provide two deputies to keep the peace. Winburn later sought the deputies' assistance at the Lenzes' house as well because of the Lenzes' reputation among their neighbors as firearm enthusiasts.

In addition to preparing to retrieve Desirae, Winburn made arrangements to collect Desirae's necessities. HRS caseworkers typically take some of the child's belongings when they remove a child, in order to lessen the child's trauma. Following this practice, Winburn had telephoned and visited Elizabeth to determine what would ease Desirae's move from her father's home to her mother's. Elizabeth asked for some of Desirae's clothing, some toys, a video game, and a set of child's encyclopedias Desirae used in her schoolwork.

Consequently, after Shirley and the deputies arrived at the school and Winburn explained the situation to Shirley and Desirae, Winburn, Paskewitz, Desirae, Shirley, and the two deputies all went to the Lenzes' duplex to gather Desirae's necessities. The parties dispute what happened there. The elder Lenzes contend that Winburn, Paskewitz, and the deputies entered the townhouse without permission. Donald testified that he said nothing to indicate to the deputies or Winburn that they were allowed in the house. Rather, Donald merely unlocked the gate to the townhouse's front courtyard and told the deputies that he was going to put on his shoes. As he turned to fetch his shoes, Donald testified, the deputies followed him into his house uninvited, with Winburn close behind. Shirley likewise denied having invited Winburn and the others into the house.

Winburn, on the other hand, testified that the deputies asked for permission to enter and that Donald explicitly consented, saying something like "come on" as he turned around to enter the house. She also testified that she had explained to Shirley at the school what she would be doing and that Shirley had agreed to it. Paskewitz testified that she entered last at Desirae's invitation, and that when she went in she greeted the

Page 1544

elder Lenzes. She did not explicitly ask for consent to enter, but was not told to leave.

The parties agree that everyone came through the living room of the elder Lenzes' side of the duplex. The parties apparently also agree that Desirae and Paskewitz first went back to Desirae's room. Paskewitz testified that while they were there Desirae showed her a pet bird. Paskewitz also attested that she then asked Shirley to come to Desirae's room to help select clothing; Shirley testified that Paskewitz asked her to comfort Desirae. Shirley and Winburn then went to Desirae's room. What happened there is also disputed. Shirley testified that she comforted a sobbing Desirae as Paskewitz and Winburn rifled through Desirae's closet and that Winburn removed armloads of clothing. Paskewitz testified that everyone in the room helped select clothing and that little clothing was gathered or taken.

Winburn then carried the clothing and other items past Donald and the deputies out to her car. Winburn testified that she asked about each item as she left. The Lenzes testified that Winburn took what she liked without consulting them. After Desirae's belongings were in Winburn's car, Paskewitz, Desirae, Winburn, and the deputies left.

The parties dispute what Winburn took, and they dispute whether Paskewitz removed anything. Winburn and Paskewitz both testified that Winburn took some clothing, a video game, and a set of encyclopedias. The Lenzes testified that in addition Winburn took the pet bird, bed linens, and an assortment of stuffed animals. The Lenzes also claim that $1987 in cash, an answering machine, and a box of craft supplies disappeared during Winburn's visit. Neither Lenz saw any defendant take the machine or the cash, however, but maintain that either Winburn or Paskewitz could have done so.

B. Procedural History

The elder Lenzes sued the defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, contending that Winburn and Paskewitz's visit violated the Lenzes' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Lenzes also claim that Elizabeth Lenz conspired to deprive them of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that Volusia County's policy of providing deputies to keep the peace in these circumstances was an unconstitutional practice.

The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants. It determined that Winburn was qualifiedly immune to the Lenzes' claim against her individually and that the Eleventh Amendment barred the claim against Winburn in her official capacity. The court concluded that qualified immunity entitled Paskewitz to summary judgment on the claim against her individually. The court also ruled that Paskewitz's conduct did not implicate the Fourth Amendment, and that therefore she was entitled to summary judgment on the claim against her in her official capacity. The court granted Elizabeth Lenz summary judgment for want of evidence of a conspiracy to violate the Lenzes' constitutional rights. Finally, the district court granted Volusia County summary judgment, having found no evidence of an unconstitutional policy or practice.

II. Issues on Appeal

The elder Lenzes raise one issue requiring discussion. They contend that the district court improperly determined that Winburn and Paskewitz merited qualified immunity from the suits against them individually, and that the district court improperly held in the alternative that the Lenzes had stated no Fourth Amendment claim. 2

III. Standard of Review

This court reviews summary judgments de novo, applying the same standards as the district court. E.g., Bannum, Inc. v.

Page 1545

City of Fort Lauderdale, 901 F.2d 989, 996 (11th Cir.1990).

IV. Discussion

The defendants in this case are in materially different legal positions, so we discuss each in turn. Our consideration of each summary judgment is guided by the ordinary principles of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
113 practice notes
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 30, 2005
    • November 30, 2005
    ...health or safety do not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment even when conducted without probable cause and a warrant. See Lenz v. Winburn, 51 F.3d 1540, 1548 (11th Cir. 1995) (``Anyone who possesses common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be......
  • Quarantine, inspection, and licensing: Communicable diseases control,
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 30, 2005
    • November 30, 2005
    ...health or safety do not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment even when conducted without probable cause and a warrant. See Lenz v. Winburn, 51 F.3d 1540, 1548 (11th Cir. 1995) (``Anyone who possesses common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be......
  • Jenkins by Hall v. Talladega City Bd. of Educ., No. 95-6243
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • September 23, 1996
    ...82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) ("[O]fficials should not err always on the side of caution."); accord Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1149; Lenz v. Winburn, 51 F.3d 1540, 1551 (11th Indeterminacies, speculations, and predictions have no place in our qualified immunity law. Elementary schoolteachers, nonlawyers ......
  • Dupler v. Hunter, Case No. 3:16-cv-191-J-34MCR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • August 11, 2017
    ...the scope of [his] authority.'" Jones v. City of Atlanta, 192 F. App'x 894, 897 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting Lenz v. Winburn, 51 F.3d 1540, 1545 (11th Cir. 1995)). Making an arrest is thus a discretionary function for a police officer. See Crosby v. Monroe Cnty., 394 F.3d 1328, 13......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
111 cases
  • Jenkins by Hall v. Talladega City Bd. of Educ., No. 95-6243
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • September 23, 1996
    ...82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) ("[O]fficials should not err always on the side of caution."); accord Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1149; Lenz v. Winburn, 51 F.3d 1540, 1551 (11th Indeterminacies, speculations, and predictions have no place in our qualified immunity law. Elementary schoolteachers, nonlawyers ......
  • Dupler v. Hunter, Case No. 3:16-cv-191-J-34MCR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • August 11, 2017
    ...the scope of [his] authority.'" Jones v. City of Atlanta, 192 F. App'x 894, 897 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting Lenz v. Winburn, 51 F.3d 1540, 1545 (11th Cir. 1995)). Making an arrest is thus a discretionary function for a police officer. See Crosby v. Monroe Cnty., 394 F.3d 1328, 13......
  • White v. City of Birmingham, Case Nos. 2:13–CV–00099–KOB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • March 27, 2015
    ...actions were (1) undertaken pursuant to the performance of [their] duties and (2) within the scope of [their] authority.”Lenz v. Winburn, 51 F.3d 1540, 1545 (11th Cir.1995) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).i. Officers Harris and Smith Officers Harris and Smith engaged in dis......
  • Robinson v. Ash, CASE NO. 1:16-CV-879-WKW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • March 18, 2019
    ...undertaken pursuant to the performance of [her] duties and (2) within the scope of [her] authority." 374 F.Supp.3d 1179 Lenz v. Winburn , 51 F.3d 1540, 1545 (11th Cir. 1995) (alterations in original). In the Fourth Amendment context, the court does not ask "whether [an officer] has the righ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT