Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Acting as the decedent’s estate’s administrator and on behalf of his two sons, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant-Officer. Plaintiff principally sought damages under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that Defendant had used constitutionally excessive force—and had thereby “unreasonably . . . seized” Plaintiff’s son in violation of the Fourth Amendment—when she fired the 58th and fatal bullet. She also appended two Georgia law claims: one for assault and battery and another for wrongful death. Defendant moved for summary judgment. She argued that qualified immunity shielded her from suit on the Section 1983 claim and that official immunity protected her from the state-law claims. The district court granted Defendant’s motion.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that in firing the shot that tragically killed Plaintiff’s son, Defendant did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, she is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim. The court reasoned that Defendant was facing down a man who had been threatening to kill her for several minutes straight. He had held a gun to her head, separately pointed his gun at her and her partners, spurned repeated orders to drop his weapons and surrender, barricaded himself in his car, and, finally, opened fire. This man knew how to conceal guns; he was suicidal, dogged, and erratic, and he had shown no signs of backing down. The court wrote it has little trouble concluding that, in those circumstances, Defendant could reasonably have believed that he posed a lethal threat. Her decision to neutralize that threat was “reasonable” and therefore constitutional. View "Iwoinakee Gebray Harris-Billups v. Milele Anderson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff served as the Chief of Police for the Sneads Police Department from March 2006 until October 2018. On October 9, 2018, the five-member Town Council terminated Plaintiff’s employment by a 4-to-1 vote. The Town Council did so under the charge that Plaintiff was disrespectful at best and insubordinate at worst. Plaintiff, on the other hand, claims his firing was in retaliation for things he said, disclosed, and reported, all regarding various matters related to the newer Councilmembers with whom he had a contentious relationship.   Plaintiff filed an eight-count action against the Town of Sneads, the Town Manager, Town Councilmembers, Town Council President, and Town Clerk (collectively, “Defendants”). He brought unlawful-retaliation claims against the Town of Sneads under the Florida Whistle-blower’s Act (“FWA”), the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and the First Amendment. And he brought identical retaliation claims under the First Amendment against each of the five individual defendants. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all eight counts, and Plaintiff appealed.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that Plaintiff has not established that he satisfied all three of these requirements for each instance of his speech that he claims were protected under the FWA. Further, the court wrote that because the record evidence shows that the Town of Sneads terminated Plaintiff for insubordination, not his invocation of the FMLA, the court concluded that the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s FMLA interference claim was also proper. View "John "Burt" McAlpin v. Town of Sneads Florida, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to a charge of lewd or lascivious conduct and was sentenced to five years of sexual offender probation. The terms of that probation provided that he “qualified and shall register with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement as a sexual offender pursuant to Section 943.0435.” Petitioner—proceeding pro se—sought federal habeas corpus relief from his conviction pursuant to Section 2254. The state moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction because he was not “in custody” under Section 2254(a). The state argued that Petitioner was not in its physical custody at the time he filed his petition. Petitioner responded that his lifetime sex offender registration, “along with all the other restrictions that come with being a registered sex offender,” significantly restrained his individual liberty such that he was “in custody” for purposes of Section 2254(a). The district court dismissed Petitioner’s Section  2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court found that Florida’s registration and reporting requirements for sex offenders do not render those offenders “in custody” within the meaning of Section 2254(a). The court reasoned that the proper inquiry here is under Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963) and its progeny. First, he is not at the beck and call of state officials. Second, Petitioner is not required to live in a certain community or home and does not need permission to hold a job or drive a car. Third, Petitioner has to provide in-person advance notice of trips outside the state and outside the country, but the trips themselves do not require permission or approval by state officials. View "Louis Matthew Clements v. State of Florida, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff had three possible strikes: one dismissal for failure to state a claim, another dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and a summary judgment for failure to exhaust. The first dismissal is a strike because the dismissing court expressly said it was dismissing the action for failure to state a claim. At issue was whether: (1) “Is a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies a ‘strike’ for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act?”; and (2) “If a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies can be a ‘strike’ for purposes of the [Act]’s ‘three strikes’ provision, does Wells have three strikes?”   The Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint based on the three-strikes rule and remanded for further proceedings. The court explained that it agreed with the district court that the second dismissal—for failure to exhaust—counted as a strike because the dismissing court gave some signal in its order that the action was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. But the court agreed with Plaintiff that the summary judgment for failure to exhaust was not a strike because it was not a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Thus, without three strikes, the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint under the three-strikes rule. View "Jeremy John Wells v. Warden, et al" on Justia Law

Deputy sheriffs arrested Plaintiff based on a warrant for another man of the same name, detained him, and released him when his identity was verified three days later. Plaintiff sued the deputies for violating his alleged due process right to be free from over-detention under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim.   At issue was whether an individual detained for three days based on mistaken identity for a valid arrest warrant has stated a claim for relief under the Fourteenth Amendment for his over-detention. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that under Baker v. McCollan, no violation of due process occurs if a detainee’s arrest warrant is valid and his detention lasts an amount of time no more than three days. And both conditions are met here. The court explained that Plaintiff was arrested on a valid warrant and held for only three days. Thus, under Baker, Plaintiff’s complaint did not state a claim for a violation of his due process rights. View "David Sosa v. Martin County, Florida, et al." on Justia Law

Residents of the Royal Palm Village Mobile Home Park in Haines City, Florida, sued the Park’s owners in federal court. The residents alleged that the owners had engaged in fraud by, among other things, illegally passing on costs to the residents, embellishing lot descriptions to justify increased rents, and falsely promising to upgrade roads and other common areas. The residents filed an amended complaint alleging violations of a slightly different collection of state and federal statutes: four counts under both the federal and Florida RICO statutes—as well as one under the ADA. The owners moved to dismiss. The district court dismissed the amended complaint for essentially the same reasons that it had dismissed the initial complaint. The owners now appeal the district court’s rejection of their fee requests pertaining to the first and second amended complaints. Those complaints, the owners argue, were also “to enforce” the FMHA because the residents predicated the RICO claims in those complaints on violations of the FMHA.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court explained that here the alleged FMHA violations set out in the residents’ amended complaints were not independent legal claims, but rather components of other claims (e.g., the RICO claims). The amended complaints did not seek any relief under the FMHA. Nor did they request compliance with the FMHA. Those complaints, therefore, were not “proceeding[s] to enforce provisions” of the FMHA. The district court correctly denied fees to the owners as to those complaints under Section 723.068. View "Royal Palm Village Residents, Inc., et al v. Monica Slider, et al" on Justia Law

The Florida Legislature passed the Combatting Violence, Disorder, and Looting, and Law Enforcement Protection Act, also known as House Bill 1 (“HB 1”), 2021 Fla. Leg. Sess. Laws Serv. ch. 2021-6. HB 1 redefined the crime of “riot.” After HB 1’s passage, Dream Defenders and other organizations that lead protests for racial justice challenged the new definition as unconstitutional, alleging that it infringed their members’ First Amendment right to engage in peaceful protest. The district court agreed with the plaintiffs that the new statutory definition was vague and overbroad and, therefore likely to chill or deter their members’ exercise of their First Amendment rights. The court entered a preliminary injunction that prevented the defendants, Governor DeSantis and three sheriffs, from taking any steps to enforce the law using the new definition.   The Eleventh Circuit deferred its decision as to the preliminary injunction in this case until the Florida Supreme Court has had the opportunity to consider the following certified question:What meaning is to be given to the provision of Florida Stat. § 870.01(2) making it unlawful to “willfully participate[] in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct, resulting in . . . [i]njury to another person; . . . [d]amage to property; . . . or [i]mminent danger of injury to another person or damage to property”? View "Dream Defenders, et al v. Governor of the State of Florida, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff is a U.S. citizen and a U.S. national, as that term is defined in 22 U.S.C. Section 6023(15). He claims to be the “rightful owner of an 82.5% interest in certain commercial waterfront real property in the Port of Santiago de Cuba,” identified by the Cuban government as La Marítima and Terminal Naviera. According to the complaints, the knowing and intentional conduct of Carnival and Royal Caribbean constitutes trafficking under Section 6023(13)(A). As a result, Plaintiff—who provided the cruise lines with written notice by certified mail of his intent to commence an action under Title III—claims that he is entitled to damages under Section 6082.   The Eleventh Circuit granted the petition for panel rehearing and vacated our prior opinion. The court held that Plaintiff has standing to assert his Title III claims, but that those claims fail on the merits. The court explained that the Cuban government confiscated La Marítima prior to March 12, 1996, and because Plaintiff acquired his interest in the property through inheritance after that date, his claims failed. The court, therefore, affirmed the district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of Carnival and Royal Caribbean. View "Javier Garcia-Bengochea v. Carnival Corporation" on Justia Law

Defendant, the School Board of St. Johns County (the “School Board”), is responsible for providing “proper attention to health, safety, and other matters relating to the welfare of students” within the St. Johns County School District (the “School District”). Plaintiff, is a transgender boy. The case involves the practice of separating school bathrooms based on biological sex. This appeal required the court to determine whether separating the use of male and female bathrooms in public schools based on a student’s biological sex violates (1) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Sections 1, and (2) Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. The district court enjoined the School Board from prohibiting Plaintiff’s use of the male bathrooms and granted Plaintiff $1,000 in compensatory damages.   The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s order. The court explained that commensurate with the plain and ordinary meaning of “sex” in 1972, Title IX allows schools to provide separate bathrooms on the basis of biological sex. That is exactly what the School Board has done in this case; it has provided separate bathrooms for each of the biological sexes. And to accommodate transgender students, the School Board has provided single-stall, sex-neutral bathrooms, which Title IX neither requires nor prohibits. Nothing about this bathroom policy violates Title IX. Further, the court wrote that whether Title IX should be amended to equate “gender identity” and “transgender status” with “sex” should be left to Congress—not the courts. View "Drew Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs L.E., B.B., A.Z., and C.S., are students who have respiratory disabilities (“Students”). They appealed the denial of their motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The Students sued Defendants, the Superintendent of the Cobb County School District, individual members of the Cobb County School Board, and the Cobb County School District (collectively, “CCSD”), in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Students claim that CCSD’s refusal to provide reasonable accommodations for access to in-person schooling constitutes a violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”).   The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded for analysis under the correct scope: access to the benefits provided by in-person schooling. The court held this claim presents a live controversy that survives mootness and the district court erred in its review of the Students’ discrimination claims. The Students argue that CCSD ignored those recommendations and continues to disregard CDC guidance in this respect. Therefore, this remains a live controversy. A judgment in their favor would grant the Students meaningful relief by requiring CCSD to follow the guidance on accommodating students with disabilities under the ADA and Section 504 as it is updated—a practice the Students claim CCSD refuses to do. Thus, this claim remains a live controversy. Further, the court wrote that the district court erred in holding the Students must show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits on a disparate treatment claim. View "L.E., et al v. Superintendent of Cobb County School District, et al" on Justia Law