Reyes v. Maschmeier, 05-12720.

• Decision Date: 20 April 2006
• Docket Number: No. 05-12720.,05-12720.
• Citation: 446 F.3d 1199
• Parties: Rose Marie REYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael MASCHMEIER, Sgt., individually, Mike Scott, in his official capacity as Lee County Sheriff, a political subdivision or county office, Defendants-Appellees, Rodney Shoap, in his official capacity as Lee County Sheriff, a political subdivision or county office, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

446 F.3d 1199

Rose Marie REYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael MASCHMEIER, Sgt., individually, Mike Scott, in his official capacity as Lee County Sheriff, a political subdivision or county office, Defendants-Appellees, Rodney Shoap, in his official capacity as Lee County Sheriff, a political subdivision or county office, Defendant.

No. 05-12720.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 20, 2006.

Anthony F. Sanchez, Miami, FL, for Reyes.

Mark E. Levitt, Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A., Robert Marshall Rainey, Williams, Reed, Weinstein, Schifino & Mangione, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.

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

Before BIRCH and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and MILLS^*, District Judge.

BIRCH, Circuit Judge:

In this case, we review a nuanced application of the Fourth Amendment in the public employment realm. Rose Marie Reyes brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that she was unconstitutionally seized when she was struck by Michael Maschmeier, her supervisor and a sergeant in the county sheriff's office, and subsequently berated in an open door meeting. The district court denied the claim, reasoning that the force used was not unreasonable, but we, however, conclude that there was never a seizure within the constitutional meaning of that word and AFFIRM on that ground.

I. BACKGROUND

On 12 September 2003, Maschmeier, the newly selected head of the DARE program¹ for Lee County and Reyes's new supervisor in the sheriff's department, had been talking to his captain about the deficiencies in the county DARE program. The captain asked for the DARE file, which Maschmeier had to retrieve from his office.

Returning from his office, Maschmeier saw Reyes waiting for him. Maschmeier approached Reyes from behind and, without warning, suddenly struck her in the back of the head with a three-ring binder containing the DARE program materials. Maschmeier completed his meeting with the captain, walked back past Reyes, and indicated that he was ready to meet with her about the DARE program. Maschmeier gestured for Reyes to come into his office where he berated her so badly that this then thirteen-year veteran of the Lee County Sheriff's office fled the office in tears.

For purposes of our inquiry, we assume that Maschmeier struck Reyes in the neck without warning or purpose. This contact aggravated Reyes's previous two neck injuries.² For his part, Maschmeier maintains that Reyes exaggerates the severity of both the "tap" that signaled his knowledge that she was there to meet with him and the invective used in the meeting.

As the newly assigned officer in charge of the DARE antidrug program, Maschmeier had learned that Reyes and other subordinates were going home instead of returning to the sheriff's office when their responsibilities at the school were over. Reyes had requested this meeting with Maschmeier because she had learned that he had spoken to the administration at her school about her performance there. Maschmeier believed that Reyes was working for only a few hours per week and was spending the rest of the time at home. Maschmeier confronted Reyes with these details at the meeting. Reyes acknowledged that the meeting in the office ended when she got upset:

Q: Did you feel as though Sergeant Maschmeier was in some manner on the day of the incident holding you in his office against your will?

[Reyes] A: I did feel, because he was my supervisor.

.... Q: And you ultimately got upset and left his office, right?

A: Yes.

Q: He wasn't able to stop you from leaving his office, was he?

A: No, sir.

Q: Did he ever say to you, Stop, you can't leave?

A: No, sir.

Q: Did he try to grab you and keep you from leaving the office?

A: No, sir.

R2-49, Plaintiff's Deposition at 59-60.

Reyes filed suit against Maschmeier, in his individual capacity, and the Sheriff of Lee County, in his official capacity, who at various times was either Mike Scott or Rodney Shoap. Regarding the claim against Maschmeier, the district court granted summary judgment on alternative grounds. First, it held that there was no excessive force violation of the Fourth Amendment. Second, it held that Maschmeier was protected by qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that these actions would constitute a constitutional violation such that Maschmeier was on notice of his personal liability. As to the sheriff, the court stated again that there was no constitutional violation but held in the alternative that, even if Maschmeier violated Reyes's Fourth Amendment rights, there was no evidence that the sheriff was responsible for that violation.

On appeal, the parties argue about how force must be used to make a seizure unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. These arguments skip an important step in Fourth Amendment analysis. In the subsequent section, we do not reach the question of whether Maschmeier's actions were unreasonable because there was no Fourth Amendment seizure. For this reason, we do not address the district court's conclusions that there was no excessive force, that Maschmeier was entitled to qualified immunity, and that the sheriff was not responsible for Reyes's injury.

II. DISCUSSION

We review a district court's decision regarding summary judgment on a § 1983 claim de novo. Harris v. Coweta County, 433 F.3d 807, 811 (11th Cir.2005). We use the same legal standards as the district court and draw evidentiary inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Id.

In relevant part, The Civil Rights Act of 1871 states:

Every person who, under color of [state law] ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Maschmeier, when performing his duties as a sergeant in the Lee County Sheriff's office, is a state actor for purposes of § 1983. Therefore, when he acts under the color of state law, Maschmeier may not deprive Reyes of any rights secured by the Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment. Reyes alleges that Maschmeier violated her Fourth Amendment rights.

The application of the Fourth Amendment in unique settings, such as the employment setting we consider today, presents difficult issues. On the one hand, public servants "are not relegated to a watered-down version of constitutional rights." Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 500, 87 S.Ct. 616, 620, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967). On the other hand, "nothing in the Fourth Amendment endows public employees with greater workplace rights than those enjoyed by their counterparts in the private sector." Driebel v. City of Milwaukee, 298 F.3d 622, 637 (7th Cir.2002). These cases bookend the contours of the Fourth Amendment inquiry posed by this case.

From the outset, we are reminded of the concerns regarding the First Amendment in the government workplace. In that context, the Supreme Court observed that there is a "common-sense realization that government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter." Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 143, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1688, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). Thus, it may be that meetings in government offices are simply not constitutional matters, which would make it unnecessary to discuss whether they are "reasonable workplace seizures." However, the Supreme Court has cautioned us against Fourth Amendment proclamations that are divorced from their contexts. See, e.g., Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 572, 108 S.Ct. 1975, 1979, 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988). Therefore, we continue with the Fourth Amendment analysis despite our intuition, informed by common sense, that not every meeting is a constitutional matter.

In relevant part, the Fourth Amendment states, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." The Fourth Amendment broadly declares a right of the people to be free from certain types of intrusion, which right courts construe as a limit on government action. For there to be liability in this case, then, there must be a government seizure and that seizure must be unreasonable. Evans v. Hightower, 117 F.3d 1318, 1320 (11th Cir.1997).

Because claims brought under the Fourth Amendment are context specific, a review of prior decisions is helpful in discerning how the Fourth Amendment applies in the public employment context. We begin with the Supreme Court's treatment of workplace searches. The Supreme Court has applied the Fourth Amendment in the private employment setting, holding that citizens have privacy interests in their work spaces, and, therefore, employees have a protectable, reasonable expectation of privacy against workplace searches. See Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 367, 88 S.Ct. 2120, 2123, 20 L.Ed.2d 1154 (1968).

When the intrusion was by a government employee's supervisor, that is, not by the police, the Court concluded in fragmented plurality opinions that when there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Fourth Amendment still applied. See O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 718, 107 S.Ct. 1492, 1498, 94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1987). In O'Connor, an employee of a public hospital was investigated as part of an internal inquiry by the hospital administration. Id. The Court was concerned with

"balanc[ing] the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion." In the case of searches conducted by a public employer, we must balance the invasion of the employees' legitimate expectations of privacy against the government's need for supervision, control, and the efficient operation of the workplace.

Id. at 719-20, 107 S.Ct. at...