Vasconez v. Hansell

• Decision Date: 08 May 2012
• Docket Number: Case No. 6:12–cv–236–Orl–31DAB.
• Citation: 871 F.Supp.2d 1339
• Parties: Diana VASCONEZ and Martha Vasconez, Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Robert E. “Bob” HANSELL as Sheriff of the Osceola County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Jason Parras, individually and in his official capacity, and Deputy Israel Yma, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

871 F.Supp.2d 1339

Diana VASCONEZ and Martha Vasconez, Plaintiffs,

v.Sheriff Robert E. “Bob” HANSELL as Sheriff of the Osceola County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Jason Parras, individually and in his official capacity, and Deputy Israel Yma, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants.

Case No. 6:12–cv–236–Orl–31DAB.

United States District Court,

M.D. Florida,

Orlando Division.

May 8, 2012.

Frank T. Allen, The Allen Firm, PA, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiffs.

D. Andrew Debevoise, Thomas W. Poulton, Debevoise & Poulton, PA, Winter Park, FL, for Defendants.

ORDER

GREGORY A. PRESNELL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court without a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 7) filed by the Defendants and the response (Doc. 9) filed by the Plaintiffs.

I. Background

According to the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. 9–1) ¹ which are accepted as true for purposes of resolving this motion to dismiss, Defendants Jason Parras (“Parras”) and Israel Yma (“Yma”)—both of whom were deputies with the Osceola County Sheriff's Office—were trying to locate Byron Vasconez. Byron Vasconez is the father of Plaintiff Diana Vasconez and husband of Plaintiff Martha Vasconez. Parras and Yma knocked on the door of the Plaintiffs' home, asking to speak with Byron Vasconez. Martha Vasconez answered the door, informed the deputies she wished to get dressed and to call an attorney, and then closed the door. The deputies forced their way into the residence, assaulted both Plaintiffs, and arrested them.

On February 14, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed the instant suit. In it, Diana Vasconez asserts the following claims against Yma: a Section 1983 claim (Count I); a false arrest/imprisonment claim (Count III); assault and battery claims (Count VI); and a malicious prosecution claim (Count IX). Martha Vasconez asserts the same claims against Parras: a Section 1983 claim (Count II); a false arrest/imprisonment claim (Count IV); assault and battery claims (Count VII); and a malicious prosecution claim (Count X). Both Plaintiffs assert the following claims against Defendant Robert Hansell in his official capacity as Osceola County Sheriff: false arrest/imprisonment (Count V); assault and battery (Count VIII); and negligent training and supervision (Count XI). Finally, both Plaintiffs assert a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim (Count XII) against all three Defendants.

II. Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” so as to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), overruled on other grounds, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim merely tests the sufficiency of the complaint; it does not decide the merits of the case. Milburn v. United States, 734 F.2d 762, 765 (11th Cir.1984). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept the factual allegations as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. SEC v. ESM Group, Inc., 835 F.2d 270, 272 (11th Cir.1988). The Court must also limit its consideration to the pleadings and any exhibits attached thereto. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c); see also GSW, Inc. v. Long County, Ga., 999 F.2d 1508, 1510 (11th Cir.1993).

The plaintiff must provide enough factual allegations to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1966, and to indicate the presence of the required elements, Watts v. Fla. Int'l Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1302 (11th Cir.2007). Conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual deductions or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal. Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d 1183, 1185 (11th Cir.2003).

In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), the Supreme Court explained that a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, “but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.... A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ ... Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion [s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’ ” Id. at 1949 (internal citations omitted). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.’ ” Id. at 1950 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).

III. AnalysisA. Official capacity claims

The deputies have been sued in both their individual and official capacities. (Doc. 9–1 at 3–4). Defendants point out that official capacity claims are actually suits against the deputies' agency—in this case, the Osceola County Sheriff's Office. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3105, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985). In regard to the federal claims, the Plaintiffs argue that, because they have not sued the Sheriff himself or the Sheriff's Office under Section 1983, the Section 1983 official capacity claims against the deputies are not duplicative and therefore should not be dismissed. However, though not duplicative, these official capacity claims are effectively claims against the Sheriff's Office. It makes more sense and reduces the likelihood of confusion to have them pled as such. Accordingly, the Section 1983 official capacity claims against the deputies will be dismissed without prejudice, and the Plaintiffs may replead them against the appropriate entity.

Unlike the situation with the Section 1983 claims, the Plaintiffs have raised state law claims against the Sheriff in his official capacity. Under Florida law, the exclusive remedy for the Plaintiffs' state law claims is an action “against the governmental entity, or the head of such entity in her or his official capacity, or the constitutional officer of which the officer, employee, or agent is an employee, unless such act or omission was committed in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property.” Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a). Thus, the state law official capacity claims against the deputies will be dismissed with prejudice. On the other hand, based on the allegations in the Complaint, a jury could find that the deputies acted in bad faith or maliciously. Accordingly, the state law claims against the deputies in their individual capacities may proceed.

B. Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment

In counts I and II, the Plaintiffs assert Section 1983 claims under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The Defendants argue that the parts of those counts asserting Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims should be dismissed because the type of conduct described in the Complaint is governed by the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 1871, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). In their response, the Plaintiffs concede the point. Insofar as counts I and II assert Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment claims, those claims will be dismissed with prejudice.

C. Negligence claims

Finally, the Defendants seek dismissal of the negligent training and supervision claim asserted in Count XI against Defendant Hansell and the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim asserted in Count XII against all three defendants. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim as to these two counts because they did not allege “an actionable duty to a specific person” and because the claims are barred by sovereign immunity.

The Defendants' first point is based on the public duty doctrine exception to the state of Florida's waiver of sovereign immunity. Explaining that exception requires a bit of historical background. Generally speaking, sovereign immunity precludes suits against the state (and its agencies and subdivisions) except where the state has given its consent. Article X, section 13 of the Florida Constitution gives the Florida Legislature the authority to provide such consent, which it did in regard to tort claims by enacting Florida Statute § 768.28. That statute provides, in pertinent part, that

the state, for itself and for its agencies or subdivisions, hereby waives sovereign immunity for liability for torts, but only to the extent specified in this act. Actions at law against the state or any of its agencies or subdivisions to recover damages in tort for money damages against the state or its agencies or subdivisions for injury or loss of property, personal injury, or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the agency or subdivision while acting within the scope of the employee's office or employment under circumstances in which the state or such agency or subdivision, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant, in accordance with the general laws of this state, may be prosecuted subject to the limitations specified in this act.

Fla. Stat. § 768.28(1). Although this language appears to make the state's potential tort liability coextensive with that of a private person, the matter is not that simple. A line of Florida cases has held that the state faces no liability for breach of a duty owed to the public as a whole, rather than to the plaintiff in particular. See, e.g., Gordon v. City of West Palm Beach, 321 So.2d 78, 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (stating municipality can only be liable for actions of officer if officer owed claimant a duty that was different from the duty he owed to any member of the public). A somewhat different way of describing this so-called “public duty doctrine” is that “there can be no governmental liability unless a common law or statutory duty of care existed...