McDonough v. Garcia

Decision Date30 March 2022
Docket Number19-21986-CIV-MORE
PartiesJAMES ERIC MCDONOUGH, Plaintiff, v. CARLOS GARCIA/GARLAND WRIGHT, individually, and the CITY OF HOMESTEAD, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

FEDERICO A. MORENO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

James McDonough sued two police officers and the City of Homestead alleging federal civil rights violations stemming from his disruptive attendance at City Hall on July 27 and, August 24 2016 and. an arrest for cyberstalking on September 1, 2016. The Court grants summary judgment in favor of Defendants holding that the two law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity. The Court also finds that Plaintiff fails to establish municipal liability as he did not suffer a deprivation of rights. Finally, the Court finds summary judgment is due on the state law false arrest claims as the police had probable, cause to arrest Plaintiff for disorderly conduct and cyberstalking. Therefore, summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on all counts.

I. Factual Background

Plaintiff James McDonough's allegations stem from three separate encounters with the City of Homestead's law enforcement on July .27, August 24, and September 1, 2016. The first:' incident occurred while Plaintiff was speaking before the City Council on July 27, 2016: When Plaintiff personally directed a comment at Councilman Maldonado, then Sergeant Garland Wright, fearing for the safety of the elected officials, intervened and ordered Plaintiff to leave the meeting and City Hall in accordance with the City's Rules of Decorum. A few weeks later, Plaintiff returned to the City Council meeting on August 24, 2016. Based on Plaintiffs disruptive conduct at the July 27 meeting, the police department issued a trespass warning to Plaintiff precluding him from entering the August 24 City Council meeting. Sergeant Wright advised Plaintiff of the trespass warning when Plaintiff entered City Hall and told him that to regain entry to the City Council meeting Plaintiff needed to put the request in writing.[1]Following an exchange where Plaintiff gave Sergeant Wright his middle finger and threatened to sue, the police arrested Plaintiff on August 24, 2016 for disorderly conduct. After being released, Plaintiff then admittedly posted online comments personally directed at Officer Monaco, where he said he would blast Officer Monaco's address[2] Detective David Mata arrested Plaintiff for cyberstalking on September 1, 2016.[3] Plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for. violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights and under state law for false arrest.

A. July 27, 2016 Incident

The City Council allots speakers three minutes to speak to the Mayor and the City Council about any matter of public interest to the speaker. The content of the speakers' three minutes does not need to relate to any topic on the Council's nightly agenda. On July 27, 2016, Plaintiff approached the podium and spoke of the accountability of the Homestead Police Department, complained that Officer Alejandro Murguido falsified a police report concerning an individual named Rosemary Brackett, spoke in favor of police wearing body cameras, stated the Homestead Police Department had rampant nepotism, and complained the Chief of Police falsified a destruction log and retaliated against a citizen for complaining of his misconduct in office. Defendant, Garland Wright, was serving as Sergeant at Arms of the meeting. The Sergeant at Arms is responsible for the enforcement of the Rules of Decorum at City Council meetings.[4] At the time, Plaintiff had spoken on 12-16 prior occasions about these topics. Plaintiff Depo. Pt. 1 at 36. The video of the July 27 proceeding was conventionally filed. July 27, 2016 Video (D.E. 62, 94). .

After speaking for two and a half minutes, Plaintiff directed a comment to Councilman Maldonado stating: "The last point I'd like to hit off with is, Mr. Maldonado, you know I'd appreciate if you got something to say to me, you say it to my face." Perceiving this comment directed at Councilman Maldonado to be a threat, Sergeant Wright, who was aware of McDonough's dozen prior visits to City Hall, approached Plaintiff at the podium and ordered him to leave.

At the time of the incident, Sergeant Wright was an officer for 16 years and had also served 4 years as a Corrections Officer. He testified that he had personally observed and/or investigated violent confrontations that were immediately preceded by a challenge for a statement "to be made to my face." Wright Affidavit at ¶ 5 (D.E. 64-5). Sergeant Wright viewed Plaintiffs comment personally directed to Councilman Maldonado to be a violation of the Rules of Decorum. Id. at ¶ 7. The City Council had recently changed the Rules of Decorum.[5] The new rules gave discretion to the Sergeant at Arms to determine if a person is disruptive and should be asked to leave.

When Sergeant Wright approached Plaintiff at the podium, Plaintiff had approximately twenty to thirty seconds left to address the City Council. Id. at 8-9. Sergeant Wright instructed the Plaintiff to leave the City Council Meeting, in order to put more distance between him and the elected officials and to de-escalate a potentially violent situation. Sergeant Wright did not tell Plaintiff to stop speaking. Wright Affidavit at ¶ 8-9. Plaintiff had stated that he had a final point to make and was stepping away from the podium when Sergeant Wright approached him. July 27, 2016 Video.

Plaintiff cannot identify what, if anything else, he had intended to say to the City Council. Plaintiffs Depo. Pt. 1 at 86-87. The video shows Sergeant Wright approaching Plaintiff at the podium and pointing toward the door as he asked him to leave. As Plaintiff exited the chamber, he shouted to Sergeant Wright, "I am going to sue the shit out of you dumb ass." July 27, 2016 -Video (D.E. 94). Plaintiff states that he walked into the lobby area and stated, . "Now we got Homestead police officers again violating the First Amendment rights because they are fucking idiots and they don't know shit. Absolutely ridiculous." Id. Sergeant Wright asked him not to be disrespectful as Plaintiff then left City Hall.

B. The August 24, 2016 Trespass Warning and Arrest Less than one month later, Plaintiff again went to the City Council meeting on August 24, 2016. In response to the Plaintiffs removal on July 27, Captain Raymond DeJohn, a member of the City's police command staff, inquired with the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office regarding whether the police department could issue a trespass warning to an individual when that person attempts to return to the premises after the conduct meriting the warning has already occurred. Defendants' Exh. 5, City's Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 2. (D.E. 64-6). DeJohn relayed Plaintiffs disruptive behavior at the City Council meeting to the State Attorney's Office, who advised that police could issue a trespass Warning after the fact. The State Attorney's Office confirmed that a basis existed to issue a trespass Warning to Plaintiff, based on his actions during the July 27, 2016 City Council Meeting. Id. at No. 14 & 15.

There was a meeting by City officials and police to discuss issuing the trespass warning to Plaintiff. The meeting included the Mayor, the City Manager, the Chief of Police, Sergeant Wright, and a city attorney.[6] Wright Depo. of Nov. 3, 2016 at 19-24 (D.E. 56-8). At the meeting, there was. agreement that a trespass warning be issued to Plaintiff to preclude his entrance to the City Council meeting oh August 24, 20.16. Wright Depo. of May 7, 2021 at 29 (D.E. 56-12). The police department is authorized to issue trespass warnings to individuals. Rolle Depo. of March 16, 2021 at 30; Defendants' Exh. 6, § 2-341, City Code of Ordinances (stating that police officers have the authority to "preserve order and maintain the peace and dignity of the city, and to make arrests of offenders against the ordinances and [the City Code]") (D.E. 64-7). The police department based the decision on the Plaintiffs behavior at the July 27, 2016 meeting.

As soon as Plaintiff approached City Hall on August 24, he began recording on his cell phone. Plaintiff s Depo. Pt. 1 at 152; August 24, 2016 Cell Phone Video (D.E. 58). When Plaintiff entered City Hall, he was approached by Sergeant Wright, who escorted Plaintiff out of the building. Plaintiff Depo. Pt. 1 at 155:2-6; Plaintiffs August 24, 2016 Cell Phone Video.

Once outside, Sergeant Wright advised Plaintiff that, based on his comments and actions at the last meeting, he had been issued a trespass warning, precluding his entry into the City Council meeting. He told Plaintiff to leave the building and City Hall premises. Sergeant Wright advised Plaintiff he would need to write a letter to request permission to return to City Hall. Plaintiff asked if he could get that in writing and Sergeant Wright indicated there would be a report. August 24, 2016 Cell Phone Video. Plaintiff never wrote a letter, but returned to a City Council meeting in December 2016. Plaintiffs Depo. Pt. 2 at 241-242.

After being ordered to leave, Plaintiff told Sergeant Wright he looked forward to seeing him at a deposition. He began to walk away, gave Sergeant Wright the middle finger, and said "I'm leaving buddy, bye-bye." At the time Councilman John Burgess was walking into City Hall and two women were exiting City Hall. Plaintiff Depo. Pt. 2 at 211-212; Garcia Depo. at 18. Sergeant Wright testified that Plaintiff was grabbing his genitalia. Plaintiff claims he was holding his camera at his left hip, but admits that "[i]f you are asking could they...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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