Patterson v. Orange Cnty.

• Decision Date: 08 May 2019
• Docket Number: Case No: 6:18-cv-950-Orl-41GJK
• Parties: DIMITRI PATTERSON, Plaintiff, v. ORANGE COUNTY, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC., CORNITA RILEY, JEANETTE BIGNEY, ALFREDO ZAMORA, and OSCAR RODRIGUEZ-FONTS, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

DIMITRI PATTERSON, Plaintiff, v. ORANGE COUNTY, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC.,CORNITA RILEY, JEANETTE BIGNEY, ALFREDO ZAMORA, and OSCAR RODRIGUEZ-FONTS, Defendants.

Case No: 6:18-cv-950-Orl-41GJK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

May 8, 2019

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion:

MOTION: DEFENDANT, ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 108)

FILED: January 22, 2019

THEREON it is RECOMMENDED that the motion be GRANTED in part.

I. BACKGROUND.

On June 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint that, read liberally, alleges that he was the victim of an illegal arrest based on an invalid warrant. Doc. No. 1 at 3-12. The invalid arrest occurred in Orange County, Florida and was executed by U.S. Marshals and "Orlando-Orange County" law enforcement. Doc. No. 1 at 3-12. Plaintiff alleges that his illegal detention continued through a bond hearing before Judge Jeanette Bigney in Orange County, his detention in Orange County Jail, his transfer to Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Facility ("TGK") in Miami-Dade County, and an appearance before Judge Oscar Rodriguez-Fonts in Miami-Dade County, based on an "abandoned" criminal case in Miami-Dade County, F-17-16392. Doc. No. 1 at 3-12. Plaintiff alleges all the Defendants conspired with one another to effect this illegal arrest and detention because he is African-American and African-Americans have been subject to systemic violations of their rights through wrongful arrests. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Orlando-Orange County violated his Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986, and engaged in an abuse of process. Doc. No. 1 at 12-14.

On July 19, 2018, the City of Orlando filed a Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint in this case with prejudice and alternatively to quash service of process. Doc. No. 35. The City of Orlando argued that it was served, but that the allegations of the Complaint were directed to "Orlando-Orange County" which is a non-existent entity. Doc. No. 35. On November 5, 2018, this Court issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that service on the City of Orlando be quashed and Plaintiff be permitted to serve the City properly and also dismissing the Complaint against the City of Orlando for failure to state a claim. Doc. No. 73 at 16, 19. The Report and Recommendation found:

With respect to the allegations raised in the Complaint, i.e., that two state court judges, Plaintiff's own counsel, the parent company of a hotel through an employee, Miami-Dade County, and various law enforcement and corrections officers and agencies, both state and federal, conspired to arrest and detain Plaintiff in violation of his constitutional rights, the Complaint fails to state a claim for conspiracy, violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights, and abuse of process, as the allegations fail to allege facts that demonstrate a meeting of the minds, fail to provide any factual basis to demonstrate discriminatory animus or motive, and fail to provide facts to support an abuse of process or violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. In fact, Plaintiff's allegations are in essence nothing more than a minimal recitation of the elements of various causes of action stated in a conclusory fashion which fail to satisfythe requirement that Plaintiff provide a short plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

. . .

Plaintiff's only allegation related to discriminatory animus is a conclusory statement that his factual allegations show a "pattern of practice that systematically violates the Plaintiff's and African Americans' rights, who have historically been victims of excessive force and wrongful arrests by law enforcement officers . . . . Plaintiff then incorporates that statement into his counts against each defendant and states that "Because of the acts committed . . . the Defendant caused or permitted the violation of the Plaintiff's Constitutional Rights, thereby entitling the Plaintiff to recover damages pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)." Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 54, 70, 88, 96, 112, 128, 136, These de minimus conclusory statements in no way establish or suggest the type of invidious discriminatory animus contemplated by the courts. Bray, 506 U.S. at 270; Artubel v. Colonial Bank Group, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60781, at *54 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2008) (finding a vague assertion of racial motivation was insufficient to state a claim).

Further, Plaintiff offers no factual allegations regarding a conspiracy amongst these actors or otherwise suggests factually how they conferred and acted in concert to actively deprive him of his constitutional rights. Thus, this claim is subject to dismissal as to all defendants. Freyre, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66348, at *18.

Doc. No. 73 at 11, 13-14 (footnote omitted). The Court made similar findings related to Plaintiff's abuse of process claim. Doc. No. 73 at 14-15 ("Plaintiff has failed to provide any allegations that a defendant as actor misused this process initially or that there was an ulterior motive for doing so, other than stating an abuse of process occurred.")

On November 29, 2018, the District Court issued an Order adopting the Report and Recommendation, dismissing the Complaint with prejudice as to Judges Rodriguez-Fonts and Bigney, dismissing the Complaint without prejudice as to the remaining Defendants and permitting Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. Doc. No. 82.

On December 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Doc. No. 83. Plaintiff didnot serve the Amended Complaint on the City of Orlando, but instead served it on Defendant Orange County. Doc. No. 108 at 2 n. 1. With respect to the factual allegations against Orange County, the Amended Complaint is identical to Plaintiff's original Complaint against Orlando-Orange County except that in certain paragraphs the Defendant is identified as Orange County instead of "Orlando-Orange County." Compare Doc. Nos. 1 at 2, 4-8, and 83 at 2, 4-9.

Based on these factual allegations, Plaintiff alleges that Orange County violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986, Plaintiff's Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, engaged in an abuse of process, and violated 18 U.S.C. § 242. Doc. No. 83 at 32-37. Plaintiff also adds a paragraph that mentions 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but Plaintiff does not allege a cause of action based on section 1983, nor does he incorporate that paragraph into any of his counts. Doc. No. 83 at 3.

Plaintiff alleges that on November 23, 2016, seven police officers from the "Orlando-Orange County Sheriff's Department" appeared at his mother's home with the "intent to violently act on purported warrant information entered in the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Database." Doc. No. 83 at 4. Plaintiff alleges that his brother was handcuffed for no reason, officers refused to show a warrant, but then left after family members complained. Doc. No. 83 at 4-5. Plaintiff alleges that officers from Orange County's Sheriff's Office were staking out his mother's home "with the intent to stalk and harass" Plaintiff. Doc. No. 83 at 5. Plaintiff alleges his brother and other family members were harassed by law enforcement from 2016 to 2018 with respect to Plaintiff's whereabouts. Doc. No. 83 at 4-6. Plaintiff also alleges that after he was arrested at the Waldorf-Astoria, he was transported in an Orange County Sheriff's Department vehicle to the Orange County jail. Doc. No. 83 at 8-9.

Based on these factual allegations, Plaintiff alleges that Orange County conspired withHilton, Judge Rodriguez-Fonts, and Judge Bigney to kidnap Plaintiff, to intimidate and threaten Plaintiff with a "purported and invalid" arrest warrant, and to illegally detain Plaintiff. Doc. No. 83 at 13. Plaintiff alleges his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when police officers arrived at his mother's home without a valid warrant in an attempt to illegally arrest Plaintiff. Doc. No. 83 at 13. Plaintiff alleges that law enforcement's harassment and stalking of Plaintiff's family violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Doc. No. 83 at 14. Plaintiff alleges his Fifth Amendment rights were violated when he was kidnapped without a valid and executed warrant, and when his family was harassed in an "attempt" to violate Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment rights. Doc. No. 83 at 14. Plaintiff alleges his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when law enforcement kidnapped him and transported him to the Orange County Jail without probable cause and then retained him in custody without the "State mandated documentation." Doc. No. 83 at 15. Plaintiff alleges his Thirteenth Amendment rights were violated when law enforcement kidnapped him and transported him to the Orange County Jail without probable cause and then retained him in custody without the "State mandated documentation." Doc. No. 83 at 15. Plaintiff alleges his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was deprived of seeing an arrest warrant for his illegal arrest, when he was kidnapped, and when he was denied his liberties. Doc. No. 83 at 15-16. Plaintiff alleges Orange County violated 42 U.S.C. § 1986 because Orange County was asked to prevent or intervene yet willfully neglected to do so. Doc. No. 83 at 16. Plaintiff alleges Orange County engaged in an abuse or process "because of the acts committed in paragraphs 16-27 and 35-37." Doc. No. 83 at 17. Finally, Plaintiff alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 because Orange County "willfully subjected Plaintiff to deprivation of his rights." Doc. No. 83 at 17.

On January 22, 2019, Orange County filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint (the "Motion"). Doc. No. 108. Orange County argues that allegations against the Sheriff's officecannot state a claim against Orange...