JOEL ROBERT WITMER, APPELLANT,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA POLICE DEPARTMENT, JOHN MEADE, EVERETT S. STEVENS, AND JERRY SCOHIER, APPELLEES
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.
Witmer appealed the trial court's dismissal of his civil rights complaint against University of Florida police officers. The court affirmed dismissal of section 1983 claims against the state and officers in their official capacities, but reversed dismissal of claims against officers in their individual capacities for conversion, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy.
The court affirmed dismissal of section 1983 claims against the state and officers sued in their official capacities because neither the state nor its officers acting in official capacities qualify as 'persons' under section 1983. The court reversed dismissal of all counts against the officers in their individual capacities, as the preemption doctrine in Howlett v. Rose invalidates state notice-of-claim statutes that shorten limitations periods for section 1983 actions, and section 768.28(6) does not require written notice for intentional and malicious conduct claims.
[1] A state or its officers acting in their official capacities are not 'persons' under 42 U.S.C. …
[2] State notice-of-claim statutes are preempted insofar as they apply to 42 U.S.C. …
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[N]either a State nor its officers acting in their official capacities are 'persons' under section 1983.”
Establishes the legal basis for affirming dismissal of section 1983 claims against the state and officers in official capacities.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 1, 1991, Witmer filed a complaint against the University of Florida Police Department and officers Meade, Stevens, and Scohier based on actio…
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 Notice Of Claim Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Joel Robert Witmer brings this appeal from the trial court’s dismissal, with prejudice, of his complaint. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On March 1, 1991, Witmer filed a complaint against the University of Florida Police Department and several of its officers, including the chief, individually and in their official capacities for action taken on or around September 30, 1987, and thereafter. In paragraph one of the complaint, Witmer describes the cause of action as a civil rights suit brought under Title 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Purportedly, Counts I and II of the complaint reflect the 1983 action by alleging that the defendants denied Witmer his “rights of privacy and freedom of expression, and his due process and equal protection rights, as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution,” based on the actions of defendants Meade, Scohier and Stevens in fabricating false police reports and filing charges against Witmer having no basis in either fact or law.
Additionally, Count III alleges that defendant Scohier converted property belonging to Witmer; Count IV alleges defendant Meade maliciously prosecuted Witmer by filing false police reports; and Count V alleges that defendants Stevens, Scohier and Meade conspired and confederated to file false police reports to thereby maliciously prosecute Witmer. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss arguing variously that (1) Witmer failed to comply with the notice requirements in section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1989); (2) state courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983; and (3) the state has not waived common law immunity against civil rights actions filed in state courts. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss without specifying grounds therefor. Following a motion for rehearing and clarification filed by Witmer, the court entered an order cancelling a case management conference set for this cause and directed the clerk to close the file.
Initially, we affirm the order of dismissal to the extent it dismisses the section 1983 action against the state and its officers sued in their official capacity. “[N]either a State nor its officers acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under section 1983.” See Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45, 58 (1989).
However, we reverse the order to the extent it dismisses all counts of the cause of action against the defendant police officers in their individual capacities. In Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 110 S.Ct. 2430, 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990), “the United States Supreme Court ruled that a state notice-of-claim statute that effectively shortened the statute of limitations and imposed an exhaustion requirement on claims against public agencies and employees was preempted insofar as it applied to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 actions.” See Brooks, By and Through McCook v. Elliott, 593 So. 2d 1209, 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
Similarly, insofar as the complaint in Counts III-V alleges that the defendant officers acted intentionally and with malicious purpose, it stated a cause of action against those defendants individually, for which section 768.28(6) does not require a written claim upon the state or .its agencies. See Hansen v. State, 503 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); West v. Wainwright, 380 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
Accordingly, the order appealed is AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and the cause is REMANDED for further proceedings.
ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Swain v. Bernie Howell, 661 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…Department of Corrections,” and that “[t]he conversion of Plaintiffs property was committed willfully, wrongfully, unlawfully, and maliciously.” These allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action. Witmer v. University of Fla. Police Dep’t, 610 So. 2d 87, 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (in an action for conversion, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy to maliciously prosecute, complaint that stated “that the defendant officers acted intentionally and with malicious purpose,” sufficiently stated a cause of…
-
Newsweek, Inc. v. Dep't OF Revenue OF THE State OF Fla., 689 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…s. DAVIS, J., concurs with written opinion. BENTON, J., concurs in result with written opinion. . Newsweek has not appealed the circuit court's order granting summary judgment as to Count II. See Witmer v. University of Florida Police Department, 610 So. 2d 87, 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)(affirming order granting motion to dismiss "to the extent it dismisses the section 1983 action against the state and its officers sued in their official capacity”).…
-
Sanchez v. Degoria, 733 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…lorida’s punitive damages statute to Wisconsin’s notice-of-elaim statute, which was held to be preempted by section 1983 in Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 108 S.Ct. 2302, 101 L.Ed.2d 123 (1988). See also Witmer v. University of Florida Police Dept., 610 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (state notice-of-claim statute, § 768.28(6), Florida Statutes, that effectively shortened statute of limitations and imposed exhaustion requirement on claims against public entities was preempted insofar as it applied to section…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989)
- Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (U.S. 1990)
- Erling Knud Ove Hansen, Jr. v. State, 503 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- West v. Louie L. Wainwright, 380 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Brooks v. Elliott, 593 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)