Webb v. English
| Decision Date | 23 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 3:19-cv-975-MMH-JBT |
| Parties | DILLON S. WEBB, Plaintiff, v. TRAVIS M. ENGLISH, MARK A. HUNTER, Sheriff, and CHAD KIRBY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants' Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 57; Defendants' Motion) and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 58; Webb's Motion), both filed on December 7, 2020. On December 21 2020, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendants' Motion, see Plaintiff's Amended Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 61; Webb's Response), and Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff's Motion, see Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 62; Defendants' Response). In addition, the Court held two hearings in this case, one on August 23, 2021, and a second on September 21 2021, both of which addressed aspects of the pending motions. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review.
On May 5, 2019, Plaintiff, Dillon S. Webb, was driving his vehicle in Columbia County, Florida. Deposition of Dillon S. Webb (Doc. 58-6; Webb Dep.) at 28, 38.[1] Affixed to the rear glass window of the vehicle was a sticker with the words “I EAT A**” in large, white letters (the “Sticker”) (Doc. 56-2).[2] Defendant Travis M. English, a deputy with the Columbia County Sheriff's Office (CCSO), pulled up behind Webb at a stoplight and noticed the Sticker. Dashcam Video of Subject Traffic Stop (Doc. 56-1; the Video) at 0:00:05-0:01:00. He stopped Webb's vehicle because he believed the Sticker was obscene in violation of Florida Statutes section 847.011.[3] Deposition of Travis English (Doc. 58-4; English Dep.) at 22, 27, 30-31. After speaking with Webb, Deputy English returned to his patrol vehicle to run Webb's information. Video at 0:02:58.
When he returned to Webb's vehicle, Deputy English asked Webb to step out and consent to a pat-down search of his person. Id. at 0:30:10-0:30:20. Webb consented and Deputy English performed the pat-down search. Id. at 0:30:22-0:30:32. Deputy English then explained his reason for the traffic stop and issued Webb a notice to appear, [4] which Webb signed. Id. at 0:30:35-0:32:00.
After issuing the notice to appear, Deputy English directed Webb to remove a letter from the Sticker so that it would no longer be obscene. Id. at 0:32:00-0:32:04. Webb refused, citing his right to free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Id. at 0:32:04-0:32:14. Deputy English returned to his patrol vehicle and called his supervisor, Defendant Chad Kirby, a Corporal with CCSO. Id. at 0:32:15-0:38:05. The two discussed section 847.011, whether Webb's Sticker violated the obscenity law, and whether Webb's refusal to remove a letter from the Sticker constituted a separate offense of resisting without violence.[5] Id. Deputy English also asked for clarification on how to convert a notice to appear to an arrest report. Id.
Corporal Kirby told Deputy English to write in his report that he had given Webb the Notice to Appear with the understanding that Webb would alter the Sticker. English Dep. at 57-59; Deposition of Chad Kirby (Doc. 58-7; Kirby Dep.) at 34-38. However, Deputy English did not make that notation in his report. English Dep. at 58. Nevertheless, the conversation concluded with Corporal Kirby and Deputy English in agreement that the proper course of action was to arrest Webb and tow his vehicle. Kirby Dep. at 34-38.
Deputy English arrested Webb and placed him in the patrol vehicle. Video at 0:38:10-0:38:54. Deputy English then performed a search of the vehicle, which revealed no contraband. Id. at 0:46:16-1:11:33; English Dep. at 72. A tow truck removed the vehicle from the scene and towed it a short distance to a parking lot where Webb's mother, Corporal Kirby, and the tow truck driver resolved to have the vehicle released to her for $225.00. Deposition of Shellie Matthews (Doc. 58-10; Matthews Dep.) at 15-19. Meanwhile, Deputy English transported Webb to the Columbia County Detention Facility (the Jail) where he was booked by Austin Dampier, a CCSO booking officer.[6] Deposition of Officer Austin Dampier (Doc. 58-12; Dampier Dep.) at 8, 11-12. Among other things, Officer Dampier performed a thorough pat-down search of Webb and was present when Webb was required to strip naked and put on the clothes provided by the Jail. Id. at 13-15, 17-20.
CCSO Officers placed Webb in a cell while his mother worked with a bail bondsman to secure his release. Webb Dep. at 48-50. Although the exact length of time Webb spent in the Jail is in dispute, suffice it to say Webb was incarcerated for more than an hour. See, e.g., id. at 49, 50. Webb paid approximately $225.00 to retrieve his truck from the tow company, [7] $250.00 to the bail bondsman, and a $15.00 Jail fee. Webb Dep. at 58-59; Dampier Dep. at 27. Webb also suffered emotional distress and embarrassment during and following his arrest. Webb Dep. at 53-58. The State Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial Circuit ultimately determined Webb had a valid defense to the charges under the First Amendment and, as such, dropped the charges against him. (Doc. 58-13).
On August 21, 2019, Webb initiated this lawsuit against the individual officers involved in his arrest and booking, [8] as well as Columbia County Sheriff Mark A. Hunter (the Sheriff). (Doc. 1). In his operative Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 40; Complaint), Webb asserts eight claims premised on three distinct theories: (1) a violation of Webb's First Amendment right, Count I; (2) violations of Webb's Fourth Amendment rights, Counts II through V; and (3) municipal and supervisory liability against the Sheriff, Counts VI through VIII. The parties' cross-motions for summary judgment address these claims.
Under Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 56(a). The record to be considered on a motion for summary judgment may include “depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Rule 56(c)(1)(A).[9] An issue is genuine when the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the nonmovant. See Mize v. Jefferson City Bd. of Educ., 93 F.3d 739, 742 (11th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Publ'g Co., 9 F.3d 913, 919 (11th Cir. 1993)). “[A] mere scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party's position is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.” Kesinger ex rel. Estate of Kesinger v. Herrington, 381 F.3d 1243, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)).
The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating to the court, by reference to the record, that there are no genuine issues of material fact to be determined at trial. See Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). “When a moving party has discharged its burden, the non-moving party must then go beyond the pleadings, and by its own affidavits, or by depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc., 64 F.3d 590, 593-94 (11th Cir. 1995) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Substantive law determines the materiality of facts, and “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; see also McCormick v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003) (). In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, a court “must view all evidence and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.” Haves v. City of Miami, 52 F.3d 918, 921 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing Dibrell Bros. Int'l, S.A. v. Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro, 38 F.3d 1571, 1578 (11th Cir. 1994)). Notably, the instant action is before the Court on cross-motions seeking summary judgment. “The principles governing summary judgment do not change when the parties file cross-motions for summary judgment.” T-Mobile S. LLC v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 564 F.Supp.2d 1337, 1340 (M.D. Fla. 2008). Instead, applying the same principles, “the Court must determine whether either of the parties deserves judgment as a matter of law on the undisputed facts.”
In his Complaint, Webb asserts the following eight claims: Count I - First Amendment Retaliation; Count II - Unlawful Terry Stop Count III - Unlawful Search; Count IV - Unlawful Arrest; Count V - Deprivation of Fourth Amendment Rights; Count VI - “Government Entity Liability”; Count VII - “Government Entity Liability for Failure to Train”; Count VIII - “Supervisor Liability.” See generally Complaint. In Webb's Motion, he asks the Court to enter partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as to all eight claims and set the matter for trial on the issue of damages. See generally Webb's Motion. In Defendants' Motion, Defendants seek the entry of summary judgment in full in their favor. See generally ...
To continue reading
Request your trial