Watkins v. Bigwood
| Decision Date | 30 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 18-cv-63035-BLOOM/Valle |
| Parties | ERIC WATKINS, Plaintiff, v. SERGEANT M. BIGWOOD, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants', Sergeant M. Bigwood ("Bigwood"), Officer T. Yopps ("Yopps"), and Officer Samuel Ramos ("Ramos") (collectively, "Defendants"), Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [40] ("Motion"). Plaintiff filed his Response, ECF No. [43] ("Response"), to which Defendants filed their Reply, ECF No. [46] ("Reply"). The Court has considered the Motion, the Response, the Reply, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave, ECF No. [47], to file a sur-reply is denied as moot.
On March 11, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss and motion for more definite statement. See ECF No. [30] ("Order"). Specifically, the Court dismissed the official capacity claims against Defendants without prejudice and required Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that comports with Rules 8 and 10, Fed. R. Civ. P. See id. On March 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed the operative Amended Complaint, ECF No. [35] ("Complaint"), in which he brings two counts against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on alleged First and Fourth Amendment violations. Unlike the original complaint, ECF No. [1], the instant Complaint raises claims against Defendants only in their individual capacities. See ECF No. [35] at ¶¶ 3-5.
This action arises out of Plaintiff's involuntary detention for a mental health evaluation after joggers in a public park complained to Defendants about Plaintiff's alleged behavior—brandishing a knife and shouting anti-gay slurs—while in the park. See generally ECF No. [35]. Plaintiff alleges that he is homeless and lives out of his car. Id. at ¶ 22. He alleges that on December 15, 2014, he was sitting outside his car in Mullins Park while preparing to make breakfast, and he was singing an anti-gay reggae song.1 Id. at ¶¶ 10, 21. According to him, this had been his "routine for more than a year prior." Id. at ¶ 11. He was situated approximately 60 feet away from the walkway where patrons walk or exercise. Id. at ¶ 10. He asserts that two joggers, Tanika Beckford ("Beckford") and Jermaine Jackson ("Jackson"), were offended by Plaintiff's singing. Id. at ¶ 12. He alleges that Jackson believed that Plaintiff was speaking to him, but he ignored Jackson and continued to sing. Id. at ¶ 14. Jackson, in response, allegedly cursed at him and attempted to physically attack Plaintiff but was restrained by Beckford, and they walked out of the park while Plaintiff continued singing. Id. at ¶¶ 14-16, 21. According to Plaintiff, Beckford and Jackson told him that they were going to call the police and have him arrested for singing the anti-gay song. Id. at ¶ 17.
Sometime later, Officers Ramos and Manchula2 arrived on the scene. Ramos informed Plaintiff that the police were called in response to a complaint that he was "in the park disturbing the peace." Id. at ¶ 18. Plaintiff alleges that, in a "calm cool and collected manner," he informedRamos that he was not creating a disturbance but that he was "merely singing a song Boom Bye Bye in a faggot boy head and the two patrons got upset and started cursing" at him. Id. at ¶ 19. Bigwood later arrived, and he informed Plaintiff that Beckford and Jackson had complained that he had been making anti-gay slurs while waiving a knife in his hand. Id. at ¶ 20. Plaintiff told Bigwood that he possessed two knives, which he uses to prepare his meals, but he denied having the knives out while he was singing because he had yet to prepare breakfast. Id. at ¶¶ 22-24. In response to Bigwood's question about how Beckford would know that he had a knife, Plaintiff informed him that everyday he is "in the park with [his] desk outside [his] car and that [he is] either doing writing or preparing [his] meals." Id. at ¶ 25.
After Bigwood had listened to Plaintiff sing the song and had spoken with Beckford and Jackson, Bigwood reportedly informed Plaintiff that he believed Plaintiff needed a mental health examination based upon the incident at hand and a previous incident eight months earlier in April 2014 at another park. Id. at ¶¶ 26-27. Plaintiff alleges that that previous incident involved "a park manager wanting to officially trespass [Plaintiff] from the park" and that Officer Manchula had been involved in that incident. Id. at ¶¶ 28-29. He also alleges that that incident did not involve complaints from patrons that he was shouting anti-gay slurs. Id. at ¶ 43. After speaking with Officer Manchula, Bigwood allegedly again told Plaintiff that he believed that he needed a mental evaluation because of his "constant singing of the antigay song in parks" and because he believed that Plaintiff had waived his knife at Beckford. Id. at ¶ 30. According to Plaintiff, Bigwood asked him to voluntarily submit himself to a mental health examination, but he refused to go. Id. at ¶¶ 32-33.
The Complaint asserts that Bigwood, in response, ordered Ramos and Yopps to arrest him,and he was handcuffed, placed in a police car, had his phone confiscated,3 and was taken to a "mental facility." Id. at ¶¶ 34-35. Plaintiff alleges that he was not confrontational with the police, and Beckford and Jackson's reports to the police were unreliable and not provided in a sworn affidavit. Id. at ¶¶ 36-37. According to Plaintiff, Beckford and Jackson made various false statements to police, such as Plaintiff shouting anti-gay slurs at Jackson, appearing hostile and preparing to physically engage Jackson, and stabbing the air toward Jackson with a knife. Id. at ¶¶ 37, 39-40. He never told Bigwood that he hated homosexuals and never shouted anti-gay slurs. Id. at ¶ 41.
Plaintiff's behavior never varied from calm to angry, and he never expressed feelings of conspiracy that random citizens and police were targeting him without cause, which Bigwood reported. See id. at ¶ 42. He also never told Bigwood that he was "not Fucking going anywhere." Id. at ¶ 44. According to Plaintiff, prior to December 15, 2014, no mental health professional had certified that he met the criteria for involuntary examination. Id. at ¶ 45. He further alleges that during his conversation with Bigwood, he expressed that Bigwood's decision to arrest him under the Baker Act was a "conspiracy between Bigwood and the other officers, especially Manchula, and the complainants, but specifically the officers because of Plaintiff's past and present pending lawsuits against Lauderhill police officers, especially Manchula who Plaintiff had a pending lawsuit against," and that the decision to arrest him was "to retaliate against Plaintiff to cause him mental anguish and hardship and to disrupt and hinder Plaintiff from timely filing a response in court in the case against Manchula[.]" Id. at ¶ 46.
Plaintiff alleges that as a result of being Baker Acted "coupled with the false statements inthe arrest records," he is seen as a "trouble maker and mental problem and case," and he cannot get employment. Id. at ¶ 50. The Complaint seeks $1,000,000.00 in compensatory damages from each Defendant and $2,000,000.00 in punitive damages from each Defendant. Id. at ¶¶ 52-53.
Defendants now move to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice based on qualified immunity. ECF No. [40]. They assert that regarding the Fourth Amendment claim (Count I), the allegations demonstrate that they were acting within their discretionary authority, there are insufficient factual allegations against Yopps and Ramos, and that the facts as pled do not show that Bigwood involuntarily detained Plaintiff without probable cause. Id. at 2. Regarding the First Amendment claim (Count II), Defendants assert that based on recent Eleventh Circuit precedent involving Plaintiff in a different lawsuit, it was not clearly established law that it was not appropriate to apprehend Plaintiff for singing the same anti-gay song at issue in this case. Id. (citing Watkins v. Central Broward Regional Park, 799 F. App'x 659 (11th Cir. 2020) ("Watkins II")).4
Plaintiff responds that Watkins I did not indicate whether the dismissal of the complaint against the Lauderhill Police Department was with or without prejudice, and that Defendants mischaracterize the Watkins I decision. ECF No. [43]. He further argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity regarding either count under the factual allegations as pled in the Complaint. Id. Additionally, he argues that he should be allowed to amend his complaint to assert additional facts that he believes would further establish liability against Officers Yopps and Ramos. Id.
In their Reply, Defendants argue that Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendants acted within their discretionary authority, and that he fails to carry his burden to establish that qualifiedimmunity does not apply regarding either count. ECF No [46]. Additionally, Defendants assert that Plaintiff relies on facts concerning Officers Ramos and Yopps that were not pled in the Amended Complaint, and that it is improper to request leave to amend in a response to a motion to dismiss. See id. at 2.
The Motion, accordingly, is ripe for consideration.
A pleading in a civil action must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations," it must provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ()....
To continue reading
Request your trial