CANNON
v.
CHASE
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 plaintiff failed to state a claim against the police department and officers, warranting dismissal.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, sued the Tallahassee Police Department and two officers alleging malicious prosecution and other constitutional violation…
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 Official Capacity Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
Antwoine Cannon, a state prisoner, sued the Tallahassee Police Department and two of its officers. He alleges malicious prosecution, violations of his right to be free from unreasonable searches, and related claims. After the magistrate judge identified defects in the original complaint, Cannon filed his First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 16. The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that concluded the court should dismiss for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 18. Cannon has filed no objections.
Having carefully considered the matter, I agree that dismissal is appropriate. First, Cannon has not stated a claim against the Tallahassee Police Department. The magistrate judge explains that "[u]nder Florida law, a police department is not a registered entity with the State of Florida and is not subject to suit under § 1983." ECF No. 18 at 2. But either way, there can be no municipal liability for officers' actions unless some municipal policy or custom was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violation. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Here, Cannon offers no factual allegations to show that there was any such policy or custom. Therefore, he has not stated a plausible claim against TPD.
Cannon's official-capacity claims against the two officers fail for the same reason. An official-capacity claim is really a claim against the entity the official represents—here, TPD. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985). So these claims have the same Monell issue.
That leaves Cannon's individual-capacity claims against the two officers. As the magistrate judge explains, those fail because they are wholly conclusory. Cannon offers no factual support for his claims that these two officers violated his constitutional rights. There are no facts about what these officers did. Such conclusory allegations are insufficient. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).¹
In conclusion, I approve the magistrate judge's recommendation, and all claims will be dismissed.² The clerk will enter a judgment that says, "Plaintiff's claims are dismissed on the merits for failure to state a claim.” The clerk will then close the file.
SO ORDERED on December 4, 2024.
s/ Allen Winsor United States District Judge
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)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994)