LEWIS
v.
REYES
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 a pro se plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed with prejudice because any amendment would be futile, and the excessive force claim based on handcuffing failed as a matter of law.
Plaintiff sued defendants alleging excessive force and other claims. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal, which the plaintiff objected to. The …
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 Pro Se Plaintiff cases and more on FLexlaw
3. All of Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
1A pro se plaintiff generally must be given at least one opportunity to amend his complaint before his case is dismissed with prejudice. Silberman v. Miami Dade Transit, 927 F. 3d 1128, 1182 (11th Cir. 2019). Here, however, any amendment would be futile because on the facts asserted by Plaintiff and presented in the video included with the Complaint, all of Plaintiffs claims fail as a matter of law.
Thus, it cannot be said that “a more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim,” and leave to amend need not be given. Id. (quoting Woldeab v. Dekalb Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 885 F. 3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2018)).
On the excessive force claim, Plaintiff alleges only that the handcuffs were too tight when he was arrested and transported to the jail. (See, e.g., video at 45:35—45:38 (Hey, these are a little tight, can you loosen em up?”)).
But “[o]fficers routinely pull arrestees’ arms behind their backs, and [the Eleventh Circuit has] repeatedly held that painful handcuffing alone doesn’t constitute excessive force.” Huebner v. Bradshaw, 935 F. 3d 1183, 1191 (11th Cir. 2019); see also Sebastian v. Ortiz, 918 F. 3d 1301, 1308 (11th Cir. 2019) (“[PJainful handcuffing, without more, is not excessive force in cases where the resulting injuries are minimal.” (quoting Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280 F. 3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2002))).
Here, Plaintiff alleges no physical injuries from the handcuffing in his Complaint or his Objection, asserting in his Objection only that he receives treatment “for Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome from the excessively tight handcuffs,” (Doc. 30 at 21).
But these allegations are far less egregious than those in Sebastian, upon which Plaintiff relies and in which the Eleventh Circuit emphasized that “only the most exceptional circumstances will permit an excessive force claim on the basis of handcuffing alone.” 918 F. 3d at 1312. The case at bar does not involve such “exceptional circumstances.”
4, The Request for Judicial Notice (Doc. 11) filed by Defendants Lake County Florida School District and Gregg Dudley is DENIED as moot.
5. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED on May x f _ = CO JO EUs ANTOON II United States District Judge Copies furnished to: United States Magistrate Judge Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Damene W. Woldeab v. Dekalb Cnty. Bd. OF Educ., 885 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2018)
- Sebastian v. Ortiz, 918 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2019)
- Huebner v. Ric Bradshaw, 935 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2019)