GARCIA
v.
PTAK
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a claim against the defendants in their official capacities because it did not allege an official policy or custom that caused the constitutional violation.
Plaintiff sued deputies alleging arrest without probable cause and excessive force in violation of his constitutional rights. He sought monetary damag…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 1915A Screening cases and more on FLexlaw
extent Plaintiff sues Defendants in their official capacities, the action is considered a suit against the local government entity they represent, see Owens v. Fulton County, 877 F. 2d 947, 951 n.5 (11th Cir. 1989), here the Pasco County Sheriff. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985); Jones v. Cannon, 174 F. 3d 1271, 1293 n. 15 (11th Cir. 1999). “A governmental entity is not liable under [§] 1983, merely as a matter of respondeat superior, for constitutional injuries inflicted by its employees.” See Brown v. Neumann, 188 F. 3d 1289, 1290 (11th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Rather, a governmental entity may be liable under § 1983 only “when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury." Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) (holding that liability of municipalities and other governmental entities under § 1983 is limited to instances of official policy or custom).
To attribute liability to Defendants in their official capacities under §1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the Sheriff's Office had an official policy or custom that was "the moving force of the constitutional violation.” Vineyard v. County of Murray, Ga., 990 F. 2d 1207, 1211 (1993) (quoting Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 326 (1981)). Here, the amended complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to show the existence of a policy or custom that caused the alleged violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. Therefore, the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted against Defendants in their official capacities.
Finally, this Court has no authority to direct state officials to bring criminal charges against Defendants. See Otero v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 832 F. 2d 141, 141 (11th Cir. 1987). Thus, this claim for relief is dismissed.
Accordingly:
1. The amended complaint (Doc. 5) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendants in their official capacities. The dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a second amended complaint within 30 days from this Order. Plaintiff must use the form provided to him by the Clerk and write "Second Amended Complaint" on the form. Failure to timely file a second amended complaint may result in dismissal of this action without further notice.
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of the Court's form for initiating a civil rights action to Plaintiff with his copy of this Order. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on April 12, 2023.
Charlene Edwards Honeywell Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge
Copy to: Plaintiff, pro se
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of the City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985)
- Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1981)
- Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 1999)
- Vineyard v. Cnty. OF Murray, 990 F.2d 1207 (11th Cir. 1993)