N.C. v. Alonso
| Decision Date | 13 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 12-61646-CIV-ROSENBAUM/SELTZER |
| Parties | N.C., a minor child, by and through REGINA LYNETT BOSTON, his mother and natural guardian, Plaintiff, v. JORGE ALONSO, individually, and SCOTT J. ISRAEL, as Sheriff of Broward County, Florida, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
This matter is before the Court upon Defendants Jorge Alonso and Broward County Sheriff Scott J. Israel's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 24]. The Court has reviewed the Motion, all supporting and opposing filings, and the record in the case. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
Plaintiff N.C., a minor child, by and through Regina Lynett Boston, his mother and natural guardian, brings claims for false arrest and imprisonment and malicious prosecution against Defendants Jorge Alonso, in his individual capacity, and Scott J. Israel, as Sheriff of Broward County, Florida. ECF No. 1. The claims arise out of N.C.'s alleged participation in a fight and subsequent arrest for disorderly conduct on August 10, 2009. ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 8, 13, 17; see also ECFNo. 25-2 at 3. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges four counts: false arrest and imprisonment against Defendant Alonso (individually), cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I) and Florida law (Count III); false arrest and imprisonment against the Broward Sheriff's Office (Count II); and malicious prosecution against Defendant Alonso, individually (Count IV). ECF No. 1. Defendants move for summary judgment on all Counts. ECF No. 24.
On August 10, 2009, Defendant Alonso responded to a report of a large fight at a football field located at North Lauderdale Elementary School. ECF No. 25-1 at 1; ECF No. 25-5 at 24:2025:7. Upon arriving at the field, Alonso observed a large group of juveniles dispersing from what appeared to be a fight near the northeast corner of the field near some basketball courts. ECF No. 25-2 at 4; ECF No. 25-5 at 15:16-16:5; 32:13-33:19. Although the juveniles began to scatter, Alonso did not pursue any individuals because he admittedly had not seen any crime being committed. ECF No. 25-5 at 20:1-22:24; 32:13-33:19. After the first fight, Alonso remained at the field to make sure no additional fights broke out and to otherwise keep the peace. Id. at 27:1-:8; 32:7-:12.
Within a few minutes of Alonso's arrival, a second altercation involving more juveniles broke out near a structure on the west side of the field. ECF No. 25-5 at 45:12-:20; 59:4-:6; 60:10-:16. According to his testimony, after noticing the second fight, Alonso immediately began running towards the altercation. Id. at 71:23-72:14. As he approached the scene of the scuffle, Alonso claims to have witnessed Plaintiff N.C. engage himself in the fight after it had already begun. ECF No. 25-7 at 54:17-55:10; 81:7-:12; 82:4-:10; 84:7-:15. Alonso testified that "[t]he fight was already ongoing and [N.C.] came in from the left and charged [into the fight] in an aggressive manner," and "began to push, shove, wrestle, [and] throw punches." Id. The juveniles fled as Alonso approached,at which point N.C. allegedly ran behind the structure where the altercation was taking place. ECF No. 25-5 at 74:8-75:19; ECF No. 25-7 at 53:5-54. Based on what he had witnessed, Alonso determined that probable cause existed that N.C. had engaged in the crime of disorderly conduct. ECF No. 25-7 at 54:17-55:10; 84:7-15. Alonso pursued N.C. and was able to apprehend him, claiming to have lost sight of N.C. for only the brief moment as he fled around the corner of the structure. ECF No. 25-7 at 53:5-54:3; 136:18-:24. Deputy Johnson, another officer responding to the call, witnessed Alonso run behind the storage structure as well. ECF No. 25-6 at 70:21-71:7.
As he was walking N.C. back from behind the structure, N.C.'s father, Norman Clarke, upon seeing his son being escorted by Alonso, became very upset and yelled that Alonso was choking and falsely arresting his son. ECF No. 25-5 at 17:16-:19; 103:6-:20. Clarke's actions began inciting the crowd to become involved and to shout at the officers. Id. Alonso claims to have grabbed N.C. by the shoulder and testified that he did not believe that he was inflicting any pain on the child, ECF No. 25-5 at 87:5-89-:10. But N.C. and Clarke contend that Alonso subdued N.C. by grasping him around the neck and squeezing down, causing N.C. to cry out in pain. ECF No. 25-9 at 89:5-:17; ECF No. 25-10 at 46:6-47:12. Deputies Geary and Johnson, who arrived on the scene as Alonso was escorting N.C. from behind the structure, assert that they witnessed Alonso leading N.C. by the shoulder. ECF No. 25-4 at 29:1-:11; 34:17-35:10; ECF No. 25-6 at 34:4-8.1 Alonso maintains that none of the bystanders, N.C., or Clarke ever informed him that the facts were different than what he had observed. ECF No. 25-5 at 85:17-86:1; 134:18-135:10.
The accounts of N.C. and Clarke, however, differ substantially from that of Defendant Alonso. N.C. testified that he witnessed a second fight break out near the concession stand("canteen") as he was walking towards it and arrived at the stand just as the juveniles involved in the altercation began to scatter because of the police presence. ECF No. 25-9 at 46:4-47:5; 47:25-48:19. Similarly, Clarke stated that he watched several juveniles swarm one individual near the canteen. ECF No. 25-10 at 31:25-33:5. Contrary to Alonso's testimony, Clarke claimed to have run towards the altercation in order to break it up and was successful in doing so before the officers reached the area. Id. at 38:21-39:5; 41:17-42:4.
N.C. asserted that he ran behind the structure where he was apprehended by Alonso not to flee from the police, but rather, to return to his father. ECF No. 25-9 at 48:20-49:18. Clarke, surprised to learn that his son was in custody, attempted to inform Alonso that he had the wrong person and that his son was not involved in the altercation. ECF No. 25-10 at 42:15-43:10; 44:23-45:23. He then told Alonso to remove his hand from around his son's neck because it was causing N.C. pain. ECF No. 25-10 at 46:6-47:12.
The interaction between Clarke and Alonso escalated. Eventually, Clarke was placed under arrest. Clarke alleges that as Alonso escorted him to the police vehicle, Alonso told him, ECF No. 25-10 at 63:6-64:11. Clarke further claims that Alonso continued to taunt him about the situation while he was in the deputy's vehicle. Id.
Clarke was charged with obstruction of justice with violence, trespass to property (non-structure), and disorderly conduct. ECF No. 25-2 at 2. N.C. was arrested for disorderly conduct for allegedly engaging in a brawl with other juveniles. ECF No. 25-1. On January 8, 2010, the charges against N.C. were nolle prosequied by the prosecuting authorities. ECF No. 1 ¶ 25. Plaintiffs thenbrought the instant action alleging a violation of N.C.'s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law.
"Summary judgment procedure is properly regarded, not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed 'to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.'" Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). An issue is genuine if "a reasonable trier of fact could return judgment for the non-moving party." Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States, 516 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986)). A fact is material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48). The Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in his favor. See Davis v. Williams, 451 F.3d 759, 763 (11th Cir. 2006). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which a jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. Further, the Court does not weigh conflicting evidence. See Skop v. City of Atlanta, Ga., 485 F.3d 1130, 1140 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Carlin Commc'n, Inc. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 802 F.2d 1352, 1356 (11th Cir. 1986)).
The moving party shoulders the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Shiver v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 1342, 1343 (11th Cir. 2008). Once the moving partysatisfies this burden, "the nonmoving party 'must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.'" Ray v. Equifax Info. Servs., L.L.C., 327 F. App'x 819, 825 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)). Instead, "the non-moving party 'must make a sufficient showing on each essential element of the case for which he has the burden of proof.'" Id. (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). Accordingly, the non-moving party must produce evidence, going beyond the pleadings, and by its own affidavits, or by depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts suggesting that a reasonable jury could find in his favor. Shiver, 549 F.3d at 1343. But even where an opposing party neglects to submit any alleged material facts in...
To continue reading
Request your trial