McDonough v. Mata
| Decision Date | 28 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 19-21986-CIV-MORENO |
| Citation | 489 F.Supp.3d 1347 |
| Parties | James Eric MCDONOUGH, Plaintiff, v. David MATA, Carlos Garcia, Garland Wright, individually, and the City of Homestead, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Alan Judah Greenstein, Palmetto Bay, FL, for Plaintiff.
Matthew Harris Mandel, Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza et al., Fort Lauderdale, FL, Anne Reilly Flanigan, Weiss Serota Helfman Cole, Bierman, P.L., Coral Gables, FL, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS
Local governments have historically provided a forum for citizens to air grievances and express viewpoints on matters of public concern. It is in this context that this case arises from a citizen voicing his criticisms of the city's police department at a public city council meeting. In this case, Plaintiff, James McDonough, was cut short from speaking at a City of Homestead council meeting and denied access to a subsequent meeting by the Homestead police. The denial of access resulted in Plaintiff's arrest outside of City Hall. Plaintiff's 14-count complaint creates a host of constitutional claims for the Court to resolve. Plaintiff brings 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for violations of his free speech, due process, and Fourth Amendment rights against the City of Homestead and the individual officers. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's claims arguing he fails to state claims for municipal liability and for individual liability under § 1983. The individual Defendants argue that to the extent that Plaintiff can state a claim, they are shielded from litigation by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Based on the Plaintiff's version of events, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the motion to dismiss. In the instances where the claims against the individual officers are proceeding, the Court will revisit the application of qualified immunity at summary judgment on a complete record.
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 29) , filed on May 4, 2020.
THE COURT has considered the motion, the response, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is
ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint consistent with this Order by October 15, 2020. The Court grants the motion to dismiss on counts 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13 and 14 as set forth in this Order and denies the motion in all other respects.
Plaintiff, John McDonough, is suing the City of Homestead, and Officers Garland Wright Carlos Garcia, and David Mata under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts Defendants violated his civil rights on three occasions relating to his participation in public government meetings. The Homestead City Council sets aside time during council meetings to allow the public to comment on matters of public concern.
On July 27, 2016, Plaintiff attended the Homestead City Council meeting. The meeting agenda posted a Decorum Policy setting forth procedures for the conduct of persons, who appear before that body. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint states that this policy was posted at the top of every agenda for every meeting of the Homestead City Council, except for the November 2016 meeting. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint acknowledges, however, that the City Council had approved a resolution "enacting revised comprehensive council meeting and agenda procedures," on April 20, 2016, four months before Plaintiff's initial incident. The April resolution repealed the language of the Decorum Policy, and replaced it with Rules of Decorum. The new Rules of Decorum were posted for the first time at the November 2016 meeting after Plaintiff's two incidents.
At the July 27, 2016 meeting, Plaintiff rose to speak during the public comment section about issues involving the Homestead Police Department. He complained about an officer falsifying a police report about a woman named Rosemary Brackett. He spoke in favor of police body cameras. He complained about the Police Chief falsifying "destruction logs" and the Chief's retaliation against a citizen who complained of his misconduct in office. Plaintiff also complained about nepotism in the City of Homestead's police department. Finally, he made a comment about City Councilman Maldonado, stating that if Councilman Maldonado "had something to say about him [McDonough] that he should say it in public and not behind his back." Approximately, two and a half minutes into McDonough's speech, Officer Garland Wright approached the Plaintiff and ordered him to leave the council chambers. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Wright refused to advise him of the reason for his removal.
Plaintiff alleges that Officer Wright pushed McDonough and stood directly behind him as he escorted him out of the council chambers. Once outside the chambers, Plaintiff told Officer Wright he would sue him as he walked away. Plaintiff then alleges that Officer Wright blocked his egress from the building.
On August 23, 2016, McDonough published an article critical of Officer Wright's actions against him at the July 2016 meeting and outlined his constitutional violations. Plaintiff alleges that before the August 24 meeting, Officer Wright met with the Mayor Jeff Porter, the City Manager George Gretsas, Police Chief Alexander Rolle, Police Major Scott Kennedy, City Attorney Matthew Pearl and others to discuss how to prevent Plaintiff from speaking at the council meeting. Plaintiff alleges that they decided to apply the repealed decorum policy and that Chief Rolle ordered McDonough "trespassed," meaning he would be prevented from entering City Hall and attending or speaking at the August 24, 2016 meeting.
On August 24, 2016, McDonough returned to City Hall and Officer Wright did not allow him to enter. Officer Wright allegedly told Plaintiff that he was "trespassed" and had to leave the premises due to his comments and behavior at the last council meeting. While leaving, McDonough raised his left middle finger at Officer Wright and said "I'm leaving buddy, bye-bye." The Amended Complaint alleges that Officer Wright then ordered Plaintiff to stop, turn around, and to put his hands behind his back. Officer John Monaco then handcuffed Plaintiff and said he was being arrested for disorderly conduct. The Amended Complaint then alleges that Defendant Officer Carlos Garcia advised McDonough of the arrest for disorderly conduct and trespass after warning and that Officer Garcia completed the arrest form under oath. The Amended Complaint also asserts that the police reports indicate that both Officers Wright and Monaco told Plaintiff he was under arrest. The charges of disorderly conduct and trespass after warning were eventually dismissed by the Miami-Dade State Attorney.
Plaintiff alleges that he then posted comments on a website known as Leo Affairs. In the posts, Plaintiff alleges that he made comments about Officer John Monaco. He called Officer Monaco a liar and a coward based on Monaco's statements at a prior council meeting concerning officers wearing body cameras. Plaintiff posted a YouTube video from a council meeting where Officer Monaco stated his home address. According to the Amended Complaint, Officer Monaco reported this to Homestead Police Department's Internal Affairs. Based on this information, Officer Mata arrested Plaintiff on September 1, 2016 for cyberstalking. The Miami-Dade State Attorney dropped the charges.
Plaintiff's complaint contains 14 counts. Count 1 is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Officer Wright for violating the First Amendment when he expelled Plaintiff from the city council meeting on July 27, 2016. Count 2 is a § 1983 claim against Officer Wright for a Fourth Amendment seizure on July 27, 2016. Counts 3 and 4 are § 1983 claims against the City of Homestead for First Amendment violations. Count 5 is a § 1983 claim against the City of Homestead for violating the Fifth Amendment's due process requirements. Counts 6, 9, and 12 are state law false imprisonment claims against the City of Homestead. Counts 7, 8, and 10 are § 1983 claims against Officer Wright for violating the First and Fourth Amendments on August 24, 2016. Count 11 is a § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim against Officer Garcia for Plaintiff's arrest on August 24, 2016. Counts 13 and 14 are § 1983 claims against Officer Mata stemming from the September 1, 2016 cyberstalking arrest.
"To survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must do more than merely state legal conclusions," instead plaintiffs must "allege some specific factual basis for those conclusions or face dismissal of their claims." Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomm. , 372 F.3d 1250, 1263 (11th Cir. 2004). When ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court must view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept the plaintiff's well-pleaded facts as true. See St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc. v. Hosp. Corp. of Am. , 795 F.2d 948, 953 (11th Cir. 1986). This tenet, however, does not apply to legal conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Moreover, "[w]hile legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations." Id. at 1950. Those "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint's allegations are true." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 545, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). In short, the complaint must not merely allege a misconduct, but must demonstrate that the pleader is entitled to relief. See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950.
This case presents issues in constitutional law, municipal liability, and qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court granted Defendants’ first motion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Innova Inv. Grp. v. Vill. of Key Biscayne
...Defendant's conduct would deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising their First Amendment right. Cf. McDonough v. Mata, 489 F. Supp. 3d 1347, 1364 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (finding second Bennett factor met where plaintiff alleged that police officer "cut short his ability to exercise his......
-
Diaz v. Amezquita
...authority or 'color of authority' and 4) which is unreasonable and unwarranted under the circumstances." McDonough v. Mata, 489 F. Supp. 3d 1347, 1362 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (Moreno, J.) (quoting Harder v. Edwards, 174 So. 3d 524, 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)). Physical detention is not required. In s......
-
Huggins v. Sch. Dist. of Manatee Cnty.
...position would have believed he was free to leave after being instructed to leave. See O'Boyle, 638 Fed.Appx. at 877-78; McDonough, 489 F.Supp.3d at 1367. Plaintiff has not established that the School Board and City of Bradenton are subject to municipal liability on this claim. As the Supre......