Rodriguez-Bonilla v. Ivey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION

MARGARITA RODRIGUEZ-

BONILLA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 6:21-cv-428-JA-DAB

WAYNE IVEY, KELLY HAMAN,

GEORGE FAYSON, RICHARD

ZIMMERMAN, ROBERT

WAGNER, JR., FREDDY

CEDENO, ALLISON

BLAZEWICZ, DEBORA

NADEAU, AYANA ROBINSON,

YOLANDA JONES and ARMOR

CORRECTIONAL HEALTH

SERVICES INC.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Gregory Lloyd Edwards tragically died on December 10, 2018, following a

short stint at the Brevard County Jail Complex. Two years later, Margarita

Rodriguez-Bonilla, as personal representative of Edwards’s estate, commenced

this action in state court against various individuals and entities affiliated with

the jail. (Doc. 1-3). Defendants timely removed the case, (Doc. 1), and it was

eventually transferred to this Court, (Doc. 12).1 On October 5, 2021, the Court

dismissed Count I insofar as it was brought against Defendants Debora Nadeau

Ayana Robinson, and Yolanda Jones, but otherwise allowed the case to proceed

(Doe. 72).

With discovery complete, Defendants have now filed two separate motions

for summary judgment—one on behalf of Defendants Nadeau, Robinson, Jones

(the Nurse Defendants), and Armor Correctional Health Services, LLC

(collectively, the Armor Defendants) (Doc. 129), and a second on behalf ot

Defendants Robert Wagner, Jr., Richard Zimmerman, George Fayson (the

Deputy Defendants), and Sheriff Wayne Ivey (collectively, the Sheriffs Office

Defendants) (Doc. 131).2 Rodriguez-Bonilla has responded to both motions

(Docs. 159 & 160), and the Sheriffs Office Defendants have filed a Reply (Doc.

170). While the Court expresses sympathy for Edwards and his family—and

concern regarding some of the Defendants’ actions—both motions are due to be

granted for the reasons set forth below.

1 Rodriguez-Bonilla originally filed this case in state court in Miami-Dade

County. Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Florida before the parties agreed to transfer it here to the Middle

Pisin In August 2022, the parties jointly stipulated to the dismissal of all claims

against three other Sheriff's Office Defendants: Freddy Cedeno (Doc. 118), Allison

Blazewicz (Doc. 117), and Kelly Haman (Doc. 118).

I. BACKGROUND

1. Edwards’s Arrest

The circumstances giving rise to this case began on the morning 0!

December 9, 2018, when Edwards was arrested for attacking a Christmas toy.

drive volunteer outside the Walmart store in West Melbourne, Florida.3 At

approximately 11 a.m., Edwards and his wife Kathleen arrived at the store ir

search of sleep medication. (Kathleen Edwards Dep., Doc. 147, at 52). Kathleen

later testified that Edwards—an Army combat veteran with a history of post:

traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)—had not slept in four days, and she did not

want to leave him at home by himself because “he was psychotic” and she

worried that “he was a danger to himself and other[s].” (Id. at 52, 57).

When they arrived at Walmart, Kathleen entered the store, believing

Edwards was in tow. (Id. at 59). In fact, however, Edwards had peeled off from

his wife to investigate a box truck parked outside, which was being used to

collect toys for a Christmas charity drive. (Perez Body Cam Video at 10:55—

11:30).4 According to witnesses, Edwards climbed into the back of the truck,

3 Rodriguez-Bonilla sued the officers who arrested Edwards in a related but

separate case, Rodriguez-Bonilla v. City of West Melbourne, No. 6:20-cv-2235-JA-DAB,

which was consolidated with the current suit for the purposes of discovery and

mediation. (Doc. 42). The Court has since disposed of all claims in that case. (See Docs.

94, 105, and 110 in Case No. 6:20-cv-2235).

+ Defendants have filed multiple flash drives containing video footage of

Edwards’s arrest and his time at the jail. Some of this footage remains under seal. (See

Doc. 128).

removed his sandals, began laughing to himself, and fell backwards into a pil

of toys. (Id.). After being asked to leave the truck, Edwards became agitated an

attacked one of the volunteers, repeatedly punching, scratching, and kickin:

him before a second volunteer was able to tackle Edwards and pin him to th

ground. (/d. at 10:20—10:35),.

Bystanders quickly flagged down Jacob Mathis, an officer with the Wes

Melbourne Police Department who was patrolling nearby. (Mathis Dep., Doc

150, at 10). After arriving to the scene and learning about the attack, Office

Mathis attempted to handcuff Edwards, who resisted. (Mathis Body Cam Vide

at 00:30—01:44). During the ensuing struggle, Officer Mathis pleaded witl

Edwards to relax and asked him why he was fighting, to which Kathleen—whx

had since exited the store and joined the crowd of onlookers surrounding he:

husband—replied that Edwards had PTSD and was “having a psychotic

episode.” (Id. at 01:44—02:00).

Officer Mathis was eventually able to restrain Edwards with the help o:

Officer Kevin Krukoski and Sergeant Michael Perez, fellow members of the

West Melbourne Police Department who had responded to the scene. (/d. at

06:00—08:20). In addition to applying handcuffs, the officers shackled Edwards’s

ankles and placed a “hobble” around his knees to prevent him from kicking.

(Krukoski Dep., Doc. 149, at 10). They then lifted him to his feet and placed

him in the back of Officer Krukoski’s patrol car. (d.). All told, Edwards’s

struggle with the officers lasted close to eight minutes, with Edwards oscillating

between active resistance and seeming compliance throughout. (Mathis Bods

Cam Video at 00:40—08:00).

Once the officers were able to restrain Edwards, Sergeant □□□□□

interviewed Kathleen, who reiterated that Edwards was a military veteran whc

suffered from PTSD and was going through a “psychotic episode,” as he tended

to do around Christmas time. (Perez Body Cam Video at 02:20—02:30). According

to Kathleen, Edwards had been exhibiting strange and “paranoid” behavior over

the past few days, including pacing around the house at odd hours, opening and

closing doors, and waking up their young daughter in the middle of the night,

seemingly without reason. (Id. at 03:40—04:10). Kathleen explained that despite

Edwards’s erratic behavior—or because of it—she chose not to leave him at the

house because she feared that he might commit suicide, something he had

threatened to do in the past. (Id. at 04:15-04:25). She also disclosed that

Edwards was on probation for attacking hospital workers when he was “Baker

Acted”5 for a previous psychotic episode the year before. (Id. at 05:00—05:18).

° The Baker Act, Fla. Stat. § 394.451 et seq., “allows an authorized person, such

as a police officer, to initiate an involuntary examination of an individual whom the

officer believes may have a mental illness, is substantially likely to cause serious bodily

harm to himself or others, and refuses a voluntary examination or is unable to

understand the need for an examination.” Crane v. Lifemark Hosps., Inc., 898 F.3d

1130, 1133 n.1 (11th Cir. 2018).

After speaking with Kathleen, Sergeant Perez interviewed othe

witnesses, including the victim of the attack, who confirmed that he would lik

to “press charges.” (Id. at 09:45-10:36). Edwards was eventually arrested fo:

battering the toy-drive volunteer, resisting officers with violence, and violatin;

the terms of his probation. (Police Report, Doc. 149-1, at 1). Due to Edwards’

manic behavior and the mental health history provided by Kathleen, the officer:

decided that Edwards should be involuntarily committed for a psychologica

evaluation pursuant to the Baker Act. (Perez Dep. at 16). But because Edwards

was also being arrested for suspected felonies, the officers determined that, ir

accordance with police department policy, he should first be taken to the jail tc

be processed and given a court date rather than taken directly to a mental

health facility. Krukoski Dep. at 16-17; Perez Dep. at 17-19).

By the time he was placed in the back of Officer Krukoski’s patrol car,

Edwards had largely calmed down. Footage from the backseat camera shows

that Edwards sat there quietly, clearly winded, and occasionally mumbled or

laughed to himself while the officers interviewed witnesses outside. (Rear Patrol

Car Video 1 at 08:30-18:00). At one point, Officer Mathis and another officer

opened the doors of the cruiser and checked Edwards for any visible injuries.

That process elicited no aggression from Edwards, even when Officer Mathis

crawled into the backseat to examine specks of blood behind Edwards’s ear.

(Rear Patrol Car Video 2 at 36:58-38:00). Mathis asked Edwards if he woulc

like to be checked again by medical staff on scene, but he did not respond.

As time went on, Edwards continued to appear calm and cogent—ii

somewhat frustrated by his prolonged confinement in the patrol car. He

complained, for example, that Officer Krukoski was taking too long to complete

his arrest report and expressed that he was eager to get moving because he was

“not comfortable” in the back seat. (Id. at 44:00—43:30). Later, Edwards asked

Officer Krukoski: “What am I locked up for? What’s the charges?” When Officer

Krukoski responded that Edwards was being charged with battery and resisting

arrest, Edwards initially denied hitting anyone before admitting, “oh, I did

punch him” and chuckling to himself. (Id. at 26:45-27:00). After nearly thirty-

five minutes in the patrol car, Edwards briefly became agitated, pleading with

Officer Krukoski to remove his handcuffs. When Officer Krukoski refused,

however, Edwards dropped the issue and calmed down. (Id. at 28:00—29:00).

Later, Edwards made small talk with Officer Krukoski on topics such as their

shared military service and Officer Krukoski’s pay as a police officer. (Id. at

51:20—52:30; 54:40—-55:20).

Edwards largely maintained this calm demeanor during the half-hour

drive to the Brevard County jail, with a few minor outbursts. (Id. at 56:20—

1:29:00). About fifteen minutes into the trip, for example, Edwards complained

that he could not feel his hands and asked Officer Krukoski to pull over so that

he could use the bathroom and remove his handcuffs—a request that wer

unfulfilled. 7d. at 1:10:10-1:12:30). A few minutes later, apparently realizin

that he was not being taken to an outpatient clinic, Edwards became agitatec

repeatedly yelling at Officer Krukoski to “take the next exit,” stomping his fee

on the floor, and accusing Officer Krukoski of kidnapping him. (/d. at 1:13:30

1:15:00). Officer Krukoski later testified that, in response to this behavior, h

contacted Sergeant Perez and had him relay to the jail staff that Edwards wa

being “combative in the back seat” and that he may need assistance when th

duo arrived. (Krukoski Dep. at 19-20). Within a few minutes, however

Edwards had again calmed down, spending the remainder of the trip in silence

(Rear Patrol Car Video 2 at 1:18:00~1:29:00). By the time Edwards was take

into the jail, he appeared to be relaxed and fully compliant. (Id. at 1:29:00-

1:31:00).

2. Edwards’s Time in the Jail

Officer Krukoski and Edwards arrived at the jail just after 1 p.m. (Vehicle

Sally Port Video at 01:09:28). They were met in the vehicle sally port by Deputy

Wagner and Sergeant Zimmerman of the Brevard County Sheriffs Office, whc

took custody of Edwards, patted him down, and accompanied him into the jail

to await processing. (Id. at 01:09:47—-01:12:09; Inner Sally Port Video at

01:12:10-01:14:48). Testifying later, neither deputy remembered being told that

Edwards was being committed under the Baker Act. (Zimmerman Dep., Doc.

137, at 11; Wagner Dep., Doc. 138, at 15). But Officer Krukoski testified that h

“would have handed them the Baker Act form” along with the other arres

paperwork when they took custody of Edwards. (Krukoski Dep. at □□□□□□□ □□

also Police Report, Doc. 149-1, at 12). And upon his arrival Edwards was put i

a red jumpsuit, indicating that he would be housed in the mental health unit □

the jail. (Zimmerman Dep. at 20; Wagner Dep. at 19).

According to Deputy Wagner, jail policy dictated that an inmate brough

in under the Baker Act should be given a mental evaluation “as soon a

reasonably possible,” on a “first come, first serve” basis. (Wagner Dep. at 22

“Normally,” Sergeant Zimmerman explained, an arrestee “gets processed in, h

gets pictures taken, fingerprints, and he’s seen by the nurse after that

depending on ... [the nurse’s] workload at the time, if there’s people in front o

[him].” (Zimmerman Dep. at 19). On the day Edwards was brought in, the jai

was “quite busy,” (Wagner Dep. at 25), and although Edwards appeared caln

and compliant, the deputies decided to place him alone in Holding Cell 7 to “coo

down” while he waited to be processed. (Zimmerman Dep. at 23).6

Video footage shows that Edwards entered Holding Cell 7 just after 1:15

p.m. and remained there for the next thirty minutes. (Holding Cell 7 Video at

6 It is unclear from the deposition testimony whether Edwards’s □□□□□□□

combative behavior led the deputies to delay his processing time or to simply place him

in a different cell while he waited for his turn.

01:19:46—01:51:30). His time in the cell was unremarkable. During the first

fifteen minutes, Edwards sat down, picked at his jail-issued lunch, and briefly

engaged in calisthenics, including push-ups and tricep dips. (Id. at 01:19:47-

01:41:46). At 1:41 p.m., jail personnel walked by the cell, and Edwards knocked

gently on the glass to get their attention. (Id. at 01:41:37-01:42:00). Ignored, he

returned to his lunch and began pacing around. (Id. at 01:42:00-01:47:34). Six

minutes later, jail personnel walked by again, and Edwards tried once more to

flag them down, knocking harder this time. (Id. at 01:47:35-01:47:55). When

that did not work, Edwards became frustrated, angerly slapping the wall of his

cell and then returning to the window to pound it intermittently with his fists.

(Ud. at 01:47:56-01:51:00).

Finally, at 1:51 p.m., a deputy appeared, opened the cell door, and

attempted to direct Edwards to the booking area, where he would have been

photographed, fingerprinted, and examined by a nurse. (Id., 01:51:30—01:51:45:

Wagner Dep. at 25). Video footage from outside the cell shows Edwards

complying at first, before turning and walking in the wrong direction. (Receiving

2 Video at 01:51:46-01:51:52). The deputy, Corporal Otto, calmly stopped

Edwards and redirected him to the booking area. (Id. at 01:51:53-01:52:04).

Edwards took a few more steps in the right direction but then abruptly turned

10

back around and swung at Corporal Otto with a hefty left hook.7 Ud. ¢

01:52:05-01:52:08). Anticipating the assault, Corporal Otto grabbed Edward

and attempted to sweep his legs, losing his own footing in the process. (Id.). Bot

men then fell to the ground, with Edwards landing on top of the deputy. (Id. a

01:52:08-01:52:10).

Deputy Wagner, Sergeant Zimmerman, and others immediately rushed t

Corporal Otto’s aid, tackling Edwards and wrestling for control of his hands a

he continued to strike Corporal Otto in the head. Ud. at 01:52:11-01:52:48)

Corporal Otto eventually crawled out from under Edwards, removed the peppe

spray from his utility belt, and thrusted it into the pileup, spraying Edwards it

the face. Ud., 01:52:49-01:53:07). Other deputies used fist and knee strikes t

try to force Edwards to comply. (Id. at 01:52:21, 01:52:32, and 01:53:40-

01:53:54). Soon, Lieutenant Fayson arrived at the scene and called over the

radio for “all available officers” to come assist getting Edwards under control

dd. at 01:53:11-01:53:30; Fayson Dep., Doc. 139, at 14). More deputies arrivec

shortly, and one of them quickly shocked Edwards with her taser. (Receiving 2

Video at 01:54:50-01:54:55). By 1:57 p.m., after nearly five minutes o:

7 It is not clear from the video how well Edwards’s punch landed. Nurse Nadeau

who witnessed the attack from her office near the booking area, told investigators that

Edwards had “clocked [Corporal Otto] right in the face,” causing Corporal Otto to fall

down, “smack[] his head on the concrete, and black{] out.” (Nadeau Interview,

Doc. 161-7, at 6). The video does show Corporal Otto's head hitting the floor, but he

does not appear to lose consciousness. (Receiving 2 Video at 01:52:08-01:52:12).

11

struggling, the deputies finally managed to get Edwards into handcuffs. Cd. :

01:56:52). All told, at least twelve deputies responded to the fight, and at lea:

nine are seen on the video actively struggling with Edwards. (See, e.g., id. <

01:54:44).

Once Edwards was subdued, Lieutenant F ayson called for a restrair

chair, explaining later that he felt compelled to do so “for officer safety,” give

Edward’s aggressiveness. (Fayson Dep. at 18). The deputies lifted Edwards int

the chair and tightened the straps around his shoulders, waist, and ankles

(Receiving 2 Video at 01:57:15—02:00:49). Because Edwards was already i

handcuffs, the deputies did not strap his hands to the chair, placing ther

instead through a hole in the back. (Zimmerman Dep. at 42). The deputies als

placed a “spit mask” over Edwards’s head to shield them from the mucus an

saliva that had accumulated on his face—presumably from the pepper spray

(Receiving 2 Video at 01:59:00; Zimmerman Dep. at 47; Fayson Dep. at 24)

Although some of the deputies later dabbed their own eyes with paper towels

(see, e.g., Receiving 2 Video at 02:06:00), they did not wipe the pepper spray fron

Edwards's face or otherwise decontaminate him before putting on the spit mask

(id. at 01:58:55-01:59:05). They also failed to remove the taser barbs fror

Edwards’s back. (See Holding Cell 9 Video at 02:26:05—02:26:15).

Many of the deputies remained in the area for the next few minutes.

talking and observing Edwards as he continueed to tense up and squirm in the

12

restraint chair. (Receiving 2 Video at 02:00:56—02:07:10).8 At one point, two

the deputies leaned down and retightened the straps around Edwards’s ankle:

(Id. at 02:02:17-02:02:53). Then, at 2:07 p.m., the deputies wheeled Edward

into Holding Cell 9 and closed the door. Ud. at 02:07:10-02:08:10). No deput

was specifically assigned to observe Edwards during this time, but Deput

Wagner and Sergeant Zimmerman both testified that they could see Edward

from their seated positions in the booking area. (Wagner Dep. at 34; Zimmerma:

Dep. at 44; see also Receiving Video at 02:16:45). Video footage from the ce!

shows Edwards moving his head and legs sporadically over the next fiftee:

minutes, writhing under the straps of the restraint chair. (Holding Cell 9 Vide

at 02:08:10—02:23:00). The video does not contain audio, and the spit masl

obscures Edwards’s mouth, but Deputy Wagner and Nurse Nadeau testifie:

that Edwards was yelling unintelligibly during this period. (Wagner Dep. at 42

Nadeau Dep., Doc. 130, at 31-32).

At 2:15 p.m., Deputy Wagner walked by Holding Cell 9 and lookec

through the window at Edwards. (Receiving Video at 02:15:52). A minute later

he was joined by Nurse Nadeau, who peered through the window herself

looking for “signs of distress.” (Id. at 02:16:00—02:16:10; Nadeau Dep. at 32-33)

Finding none, Nurse Nadeau walked back to her office, and Deputy Wagner

8 At times the deputies also appeared to speak to Edwards, but the video has nc

sound.

13

returned to his desk. (Receiving Video at 02:16:10—02:16:45; Nadeau Dep. at

33).° At 2:18 p.m., Lieutenant Fayson also walked by and looked into the cell

before continuing on his way. (Receiving Video at 02:17:57-02:18:05). None o:

the individuals who viewed Edwards during this time reported seeing any

indication that he needed medical attention. (Nadeau Dep. at 33; Wagner Dep

at 42; Zimmerman Dep. at 41).

Within minutes, however, things took a turn for the worse. At 2:22 p.m..

as Deputy Wagner was speaking with another deputy at his desk, an

unidentified jail employee entered the receiving area and saw Edwards ir

Holding Cell 9. (Receiving Video at 02:22:17-02:22:25). Apparently concerned.

she beckoned a passing deputy and the two approached the cell door together,

observing Edwards through the window. (id.. 02:22:26—02:22:52).19 A few

seconds later, the employee said something to Deputy Wagner, who quickly left

° Nadeau was asked during her deposition why she did not enter the cell at this

point and perform a more thorough medical examination on Edwards. She replied that

she was not allowed to do so until the deputies determined that Edwards was no longer

combative. (Nadeau Dep. at 33-34). None of the Sheriff's Office Defendants were able

to confirm the existence of such a rule. (Wagner Dep. at 43; Zimmerman Dep. at 48).

10 Tt is not clear from the video why the jail employee was concerned about

Kdwards’s condition. As she peered inside the cell, Edwards continued to move his legs

and struggle against the straps of the restraint chair, as he had been doing on-and-off

for fifteen minutes. (Holding Cell 9 Video at 02:22:17—02:22:52). It was only after the

deputies entered his cell that Edwards appeared to become limp and unresponsive. (/d.

at 02:23:20). In his deposition testimony, Deputy Wagner stated only that the employee

“indicated to [him] that she had concerns about his well-being.” (Wagner Dep. at 35).

As one possible explanation, Nurse Nadeau told investigators shortly after Edwards’s

death that he had “abruptly stopped hollering. So the officer went right to him.”

(Nadeau Interview at 8).

14

his chair and approached the cell with Lieutenant Fayson. Ud. at 02:22:53-

02:23:04). After returning to Deputy Wagner’s desk to grab the keys, the tw

deputies entered the cell as Nurse Nadeau arrived and waited by the door. Ud

at 02:23:04—02:23:20).

Inside the cell, Edwards appeared lethargic and unresponsive. (Holdings

Cell 9 Video at 02:23:20-02:24:38). Lieutenant Fayson immediately removed the

spit mask and used it to wipe Edwards’s face, while Deputy Wagner applied =<

series of sternum rubs to no avail. (Id.). Soon, more deputies entered the cel.

and began freeing Edwards from the restraints, his limp body hunching over as

they removed his handcuffs and pulled out the taser barbs still in his back. Ud.

at 02:25:00-—02:26:21). At 2:26 p.m., Nurse Nadeau entered and began

administering oxygen to Edwards, who was breathing with “shallow breaths’

but had a pulse of 68. (Id. at 02:26:20—2:27:50; Nadeau Dep. at 41). According tc

Nurse Nadeau, she attempted at some point to contact the charge nurse but

received no response. (Nadeau Dep. at 40). A few minutes later, Nurses

Robinson and Jones arrived with a stretcher, (Holding Cell 9 Video at 2:30:00),

but the deputies decided to wheel Edwards to the medical unit in the restraint

chair instead, (Nadeau Dep. at 43).

At 2:32 p.m., almost ten minutes after the deputies first entered

Edwards’s cell and found him unresponsive, they started transporting him to

the medical unit. (Holding Cell 9 Video at 02:32:29). The group arrived less than

15

three minutes later, and medical personnel immediately began to assess

Edwards’s condition. (Medical Entrance 03 Video at 02:34:15—02:38:00). At 2:38

p.m., his condition appeared to deteriorate further, as the deputies and medical

staff removed Edwards’s limp body from the restraint chair, placed him on the

floor, and began administering CPR. (Id. at 02:38:28-02:40:00). Around this

time, the charge nurse asked Sergeant Zimmerman to call 911. (BCSO Report,

Doc. 185-1, at 26). At 2:49 p.m., paramedics arrived and took control of the scene,

continuing to administer CPR and employing other emergency measures.

(Medical Entrance 03 Video at 02:49:10—03:04:20). Fifteen minutes later, the

paramedics lifted Edwards onto a stretcher and transported him to Rockledge

Regional Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead at 8 p.m. the next day.

(Id. at 03:04:20—03:05:26; Autopsy Report, Doc. 141-1, at 1).

3. The Cause of Death

Exactly what caused Edwards’s death remains in dispute. Dr. Sajid

Qaiser, the Brevard County Medical Examiner who performed the official

autopsy, listed Edward’s cause of death as “excited delirium and complications

due to hyperactive and violent state with subsequent restraint.” (Autopsy

Report at 1). As he later explained, excited delirium is a “disturbance in the

cognition and the consciousness of [an] individual” that “becomes more

exaggerated with combativeness, like in the fighting attitude or any kind of

hyperactivity.” (Qaiser Dep., Doc. 141, at 19). In this state, according to Dr.

16

Qaiser, “neurotransmitters in our body,” such as adrenaline, “increase in leve’

because of their increased activity and level in the blood... exert[ing] □□□□

effect on the heart and blood vessels” and eventually leading to cardiac arrest.

Ud. at 21). In Edwards's case, Dr. Qaiser said, these effects were exacerbated by

attempts to restrain him during his hyperactive state, including his initia

detention by bystanders outside of the Walmart, his altercations with the West

Melbourne police officers and the Brevard County deputies, and his eventual

placement in the restraint chair. (/d. at 21).

Dr. Vernard Adams, a forensic pathologist hired by the Armor

Defendants, agreed with Dr. Qaiser’s conclusion that Edwards died from

“excited delirium,” though he appeared to place some blame on Edwards’s

preexisting “hypertensive heart disease.” (Adams Dep., Doc. 142, at □□□□ Like

Dr. Qaiser, Dr. Adams opined that some of the techniques used by the deputies

to subdue Edwards—including the taser, pepper spray, and restraint chair—

likely contributed to his fatal adrenaline dump, “not only though pain, but also

probably from fear,” by keeping Edwards in a prolonged state of fight-or-flight.

(id. at 14-16). While these actions may have exacerbated the effects of

Edwards’s condition, however, Dr. Adams confirmed his belief that “the excited

1 During his deposition, Dr. Adams repeatedly referred a medical report that

he prepared for Defendants. That report has not been presented to the Court.

17

delirium that [Edwards] suffered from [when he died] was due to h:

schizoaffective disorder and his chronic substance abuse.” Ud. at 14).

Dr. Daniel Schultz, the medical expert hired by Rodriguez-Bonilla, offere

a different take. To start, Dr. Schultz clarified that he does not “believe in th

phenomenon of excited delirium,” noting that it is “not recognized by th

American Medical Association or the psychiatric association.” (Schultz Dep

Doc. 144, at 16-17). According to Dr. Schultz, “[w]hile a person could be deliriou

and excited ... I don’t ascribe to the concept that that in and of itself is th

reason for the death.” (Id. at 17). Instead, Dr. Schultz concluded that Edward

died from “rhabdomyolysis,” a condition in which the breakdown of muscl

tissue releases toxins into the bloodstream, damaging the kidneys an

eventually leading to cardiac arrest. (Id. at 14).

As for the cause of this rhabdomyolysis, Dr. Schultz acknowledged tha

Edwards’s muscles might have been damaged by his own exertions against th

arresting officers and, later, the deputies. (Schultz Dep. at 16). He maintained

however, that “the primary issue [was] the tight strapping to the restraint chai

... with a smaller component from the primary struggles that ensued prior t«

that.” (Schultz Dep. at 20). Dr. Schultz wrote in his report that “[t]he prolongec

pressure over at least roughly half a[n] hour [in the restraint chair] to large

muscle groups [is] in my opinion the primary reason|]” for Edwards’s rapic

18

decline in health. (Schultz Report, Doc. 144, at 7).!2 Dr. Schultz does not believe

that the use of a taser contributed to Edwards’s death, and although he

suggested in his report that the combined use of pepper spray and a spit mask

may have played some role in Edwards’s death, Dr. Schultz later demurred

admitting: “I think I could fall back on removing that as a contributory

issue... . [I]n retrospect, I think I would have not included that specifically or

the contributory line.” (Schultz Dep. at 56—57).13

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there

is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled tc

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The Court must construe the

facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150

(2000). “However, [courts] draw these inferences only ‘to the extent supportable

by the record.” Penley v. Eslinger, 605 F.3d 843, 848 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 381 n.8 (2007)). “Thus, the requirement to view

12 Dy. Josef Thundiyil, a toxicologist hired by the Sheriffs Office Defendants,

also believes that Edwards died from rhabdomyolysis. (Thundiyil Dep., Doc. 143, at

16-17). Unlike Dr. Schultz, however, Dr. Thundiyil attributes this rhabdomyolysis to

Edwards’s alleged “huffing” of inhalants, not to his time in the restraint chair. (Id. at

a None of the medical experts appear to believe that Edwards died from being

“suffocated very slowly and painfully” by the spit mask, as alleged in the operative

complaint. (Sec. Amend. Compl., Doc. 42, § 147).

19

the facts in the nonmoving party’s favor extends to genuine disputes over

material facts and not where all that exists is ‘some metaphysical doubt as tc

material facts.” Id. (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp..

475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)). “Essentially, the inquiry is ‘whether the evidence

presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to the jury or whether

it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Sawyer v.

Southwest Airlines Co., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1262 (D. Kan. 2003) (quoting

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986)).

Ill. DISCUSSION

Rodriguez-Bonilla brings an exhaustive ten counts against a total of eight

Defendants. The first five of these counts are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, which provides for a cause of action against any person who, “under

color” of state law, deprives an individual of the “rights, privileges, or

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws [of the United States].” The

claims brought under this statute are: excessive force against the Deputy

Defendants (Count I); deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against

the Deputy Defendants and the Nurse Defendants (Count II); supervisor

liability against the Deputy Defendants (Count IID): failure to intervene against

the Deputy Defendants and the Nurse Defendants (Count IV); and a Monell

20

claim against Sheriff Ivey! and Armor (Count V).15 Notably, only Counts I an

IT may stand alone—Counts III-V are derivative (and in some cases

duplicative) claims that depend on the existence of an underlying constitutiona

violation. In other words, if the Court determines that summary Judgment i

appropriate on Counts J and II, the remaining federal counts fall as well.

The remaining five counts are state-law claims: willful and wanto:

negligence against the Deputy Defendants (Count VI);16 ordinary negligenc

against Sheriff Ivey (Count VII); medical malpractice against the Armo

Defendants (Counts VIII & IX); and vicarious liability against Armor itsel

(Count X).

The Sheriff's Office Defendants now move for summary judgment on al

claims against them. The Armor Defendants move for summary judgment solel;

on the federal claims. Should that motion be granted, the Armor Defendant:

request that this Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the

remaining state-law claims and instead remand them to state court. See 2§

U.S.C. § 13867(c)(8).

14 Sheriff Ivey is sued solely in his official capacity. (Sec. Amend. Compl. § 21).

‘5 Monell established that “[l]ocal governing bodies [and officials] ...can be suec

directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where ... the actior

that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement

ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that □□□□□□

officers.” Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Serus., 436 U.S. 658, 689 (1978).

16 In her Response to the Sheriffs Office Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment, Rodriguez-Bonilla states that she is no longer pursuing Count VI. (Doc. 15¢

at 2).

21

1. Excessive Force (Count I)

In Count I, Rodriguez-Bonilla alleges that the Deputy Defendants violatec

Edwards’s Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. The

Deputy Defendants deny using excessive force on Edwards and argue that

regardless, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

(a) Qualified Immunity

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from

liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable persor

would have known.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). “The purpose of this immunity

is to allow government officials to carry out their discretionary duties without

the fear of personal liability or harassing litigation, protecting from suit ‘all but

the plainly incompetent or one who is knowingly violating the federal law.” Lee

v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1194 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Willingham v.

Loughnan, 261 F.3d 1178, 1187 (11th Cir. 2001), vacated on other grounds, 537

U.S. 801, 801 (2002)). “[T]o receive qualified immunity, an official must first

establish that ‘he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority

when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.” McCullough v. Antolini, 559 F.3d

1201, 1205 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Lee, 284 F.3d at 1194). If so, “the burden

22

then shifts to the plaintiff to show that the grant of qualified immunity i

inappropriate.” Id.

Here, Rodriguez-Bonilla does not contest the Deputy Defendants

assertion that they were acting within the scope of their discretionary authorit;

during their interactions with Edwards—and any such challenge woul

certainly fail. See Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252, 126!

(lith Cir. 2004) (explaining that an official acts within his discretionary

function when he is “(a) performing a legitimate job-related function (that is

pursuing a job-related goal), (b) through means that were within his power □□

utilize”). Thus, the burden shifts to Rodriguez-Bonilla to establish that (1) the

facts, viewed in the light most favorable to her, show a violation of Edwards’:

constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the

events at issue. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236.

(b) Did the Deputy Defendants Violate Edwards’s Rights?

“[T]he Fourteenth Amendment guards against the use of excessive force

against arrestees and pretrial detainees.” J W ex rel. Williams v. Birmingham

Bd. of Educ., 904 F.3d 1248, 1259 (11th Cir. 2018).17 Rodriguez-Bonilla concedes

17 By the time of his death, Edwards had not yet received a probable-cause

hearing. As a result, there is some uncertainty regarding whether the Defendants’

actions should be assessed under the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment. See Crocker

v. Beatty, 995 F.3d 1232, 1256 (11th Cir. 2021) (Newsom, J., concurring) (recognizing

that Eleventh Circuit precedent “hasn’t settled the issue” whether a claim “brought by

an individual who has been arrested but hasn't yet received a judicial determination

283

that the force initially employed by the Deputy Defendants to subdu

Kdwards—including the use of body strikes, pepper spray, a taser, a restrain

chair, and a spit mask—was not excessive, as Edwards was still resisting th

deputies following his attack on Corporal Otto. (Doc. 159 at 13). She argues

however, that the Deputy Defendants violated Edwards’s constitutional right:

by continuing to apply force after Edwards was fully restrained. Among □□□□□

alleged violations, Rodriguez-Bonilla cites: (1) keeping Edwards in the restrain:

chair without allowing a nurse to check his vital signs or the tightness of the

straps; (2) keeping him handcuffed behind his back while in the restraint chair

(3) not removing the taser barbs in his back; (4) failing to decontaminate him

after the use of pepper spray and then placing a spit mask over his head; anc

(5) failing to continuously observe him after he was placed in the restraint chair.

Ud. at 13-14).

of probable cause . . . arise[s] under the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment”). Since

every party to this case has proceeded under the assumption that Rodriguez-Bonilla’s

§ 1983 claims fall under the Fourteenth Amendment—and because the Eleventh

Circuit has yet to direct otherwise—this Court will assess them under that standard.

See id. at 1261-62 (Martin, J., dissenting) (noting that “[iJn the past, and in the

absence of an affirmative answer as to when arrest ends and pretrial detention begins,

[the Eleventh Circuit] has deferred to the characterization given by the parties, where

they agree”). Indeed, following Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 567 US. 389, 397 (2015), this

may be nothing more than a formalistic concern, as “the Fourteenth Amendment

standard has come to resemble the test that governs excessive-force claims brought by

arrestees under the Fourth Amendment.” Piazza v. Jefferson Cnty., 923 F.3d 947, 952-

53 (11th Cir. 2019).

9A

“Prior to Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015), ... ‘{a] claim o

excessive force under the Fourteenth Amendment [was] analyzed as if it were

an excessive-force claim under the Eighth Amendment’ and, therefore . . . a ‘uss

of force against a pretrial detainee [was] excessive .. . if it shock[ed] the

conscience’ or was ‘applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Patel v

Lanier Cnty., 969 F.3d 1173, 1181 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Fennell v. Gilstrap

559 F.3d 1212, 1216 n.5, 1217 (11th Cir. 2009)). “In Kingsley, though, the

Supreme Court clarified that the Eighth Amendment's malicious-and-sadistic

standard—which applies to incarcerated prisoners—does not extend to pretria.

detainees.” Id. Now, “[a] pretrial detainee must show only that the force

purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable,” with

no additional element of subjective intent. Kingsley, 576 U.S. at 396—97. In othe:

words, “[a]fter Kingsley, the Fourteenth Amendment's standard is analogous tc

[that of] the Fourth Amendment|],” not the Eighth Amendment. Patel, 969 F.3d

at 1182; see also Piazza v. Jefferson Cnty., 923 F.3d 947, 952-53 (11th Cir. 2019)

([Jnasmuch as it entails an inquiry into the objective reasonableness of the

officers’ actions, the Fourteenth Amendment standard has come to resemble the

test that governs excessive-force claims brought by arrestees under the Fourth

Amendment.”).18

18 Rodriguez-Bonilla, apparently unaware of Kingsley’s doctrinal shift, argues

her Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claim under the old standard. She insists,

25

As in the Fourth Amendment context, assessing the “objectiv

reasonableness” of a use of force under the Fourteenth Amendment “turns o

the ‘facts and circumstances of each particular case.” Kingsley, 576 U.S. at 39

(quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)). “A court must make thi

determination from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene

including what the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20 vision c

hindsight.” Id. Moreover, “[a] court must ... account for the ‘legitimate interest

that stem from [the government's] need to manage the facility in which th

individual is detained,’ appropriately deferring to ‘policies and practices that it

th[e] judgment’ of jail officials ‘are needed to preserve internal order an

discipline and to maintain institutional security.” Id. (quoting Bell v. Wolfish

441 U.S. 520, 540 (1979)).

With these caveats in mind, Kingsley points to a number of factors tha

“may bear on the reasonableness or unreasonableness” of a particular use o

for example, that her claim requires both an “objective showing of deprivation or Injury

and a subjective showing that the official had a sufficiently culpable state of mind,’

(Doc. 159 at 11 (citing Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288, 1304 (11th Cir. 2010))—that

is, that the force was applied not “in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore

discipline,” but rather “maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” (Id. (quoting

Hudson v. McMillan, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992))). Perplexingly, even after misstating the

standard under which her claim will be assessed, Rodriguez-Bonilla makes no effort tc

show that the Deputy Defendants exhibited this malicious state of mind. Moreover.

ignoring Kingsley, she makes no effort to establish that the force used by the Deputy

Defendants was objectively unreasonable, stating (incorrectly) that “[iJn a claim fox

excessive force, the objective requirement is satisfied by a demonstration that the

plaintiff suffered any degree of harm.” (Doc. 159 at 11 (citing Skelly v. Okaloosa Cnty.

Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 456 Fed. App’x 845, 847 (11th Cir. 2012))).

26

force, including: “[1] the relationship between the need for the use of force an

the amount of force used; [2] the extent of the plaintiff's injury; [3] any effor

made by the officer to temper or to limit the amount of force; [4] the severity o

the security problem at issue; [5] the threat reasonably perceived by the officer

and [6] whether the plaintiff was actively resisting.” Kingsley, 567 U.S. at 397.

Considering these factors together, there is little doubt that the Deput:

Defendants’ initial use of force was not excessive—as Rodriguez-Bonilla □□□□□

concedes. Edwards, who had just initiated a violent, unprovoked attack or

Corporal Otto, undoubtedly posed a grave threat to jail security and was □□□□□□□□

resisting the Deputy Defendants’ efforts to restrain him. In response, the

Deputy Defendants gradually increased the severity of their force techniques a:

the struggle progressed, applying no more force than necessary to gain contro

of Edwards, and disengaging when they managed to subdue him. While the force

used against Edwards—and the pain it caused him—was unfortunate, it was

not unreasonable.

What happened after Edwards was placed into the restraint chair

presents a closer call. “Obviously, ‘legitimate interests —including the need tc

‘preserve internal order and discipline’ and ‘maintain institutional security —

may at times require jail officers to use force.” Piazza, 923 F.3d at 953 (quoting

Kingsley, 576 F.3d at 397). Still, jail officials may not “continue to employ force

27

or other coercive measures after the necessity for such coercive action ha

ceased.” Id. (quoting Ort v. White, 813 F.2d 318, 327 (11th Cir. 1987)).

The jail security footage makes clear that even after being subdued

Edwards continued to struggle against the straps of the restraint chair

providing no indication that he would stop fighting if he were released. Thus, 1

was reasonable for the Deputy Defendants to keep Edwards restrained for the

twenty-five minutes that elapsed between when he was placed into the chai

and when he suddenly became unresponsive in the holding cell. See Williams v

Burton, 943 F.2d 1572, 1574-77 (11th Cir. 1991) (finding no constitutiona

violation where a disruptive inmate was gagged and placed in a restraint □□□□

for “twenty-eight and one-half hours, with brief intervals for eating, physica.

exercise, and toilet use”). It was also reasonable to leave Edwards’s arms

handcuffed behind his back, since any adjustment was likely to subject the

Deputy Defendants to further assault.!9 And, given the chaotic scene that

preceded Edwards’s placement into the chair. the Deputy Defendants may be

forgiven for not removing the taser barbs from his back before they managed to

strap him down, after which his back became inaccessible. Finally, some of the

actions Rodriguez-Bonilla points out—such as the Deputy Defendants’ failure

19 On this point, Rodriguez-Bonilla’s own use-of-force expert appears to agree,

stating that he would “defer . . . to [the deputies] on the scene” regarding whether

Edwards’s arms should have been left handcuffed behind his back or strapped into the

restraint chair, given his level of resistance. (Neely Dep., Doc. 140, at 90-91).

28

to have a nurse physically inspect Edwards in the restraint chair, or t

continuously observe him after he was placed in Holding Cell 9—are faciall:

insufficient to constitute excessive force, even if they amounted to violations o

internal jail policy. See Beck v. Beck, No. 2:12-cv—312-FtM—29SPC, 2012 WI

2792936, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 9, 2012) (“A violation of a jail’s policies does no

amount to a violation of the Constitution.”).

That said, at least one action of the Deputy Defendants gives this Cour

significant pause: their decision to cover Edwards’s head with a spit mask anc

leave him in a holding cell for fifteen minutes without first removing the peppe:

spray from his face.

Considering the Kingsley factors once more, there was no ongoing reasor

to subject Edwards to the effects of the pepper spray once he was placed into the

restraint chair, even as he continued to struggle against the straps in vain. Anc

although Edwards’s presence in the chair may have prevented the Deputy

Defendants from giving him a full decontamination shower, they made no effort

to minimize the effects of the pepper spray by washing his face with water o1

even simply wiping it with paper towels, as some of the deputies were doing tc

their own faces after the scuffle. (See, e.g., Receiving 2 Video at 02:06:00).

Indeed, rather than minimizing the effects of the pepper spray, the Deputy

Defendants arguably exacerbated them, covering Edwards’s face with a spit

29

mask without any indication that he was actively spitting at the deputies. (Se

Wagner Dep. at 39; Zimmerman Dep. at 47; Fayson Dep. at 24).

Finally, although Rodriguez-Bonilla’s medical expert retracted his initia

statement that the pepper spray and spit mask played a role in Edwards’

death—which he attributed to “rhabdomyolysis,” (Schultz Dep. at 56-57)—a

least one medical expert maintains that the combination exacerbated Edwards’

“excited delirium” “[nJot only through pain, but also probably from fear,” (Adam:

Dep. at 15-16). There is at least some evidence, then, that the □□□□□□□

Defendants’ actions may have injured Edwards. See Patel, 969 F.3d at 1184 (“We

[do not] think the Kingsley Court meant to suggest that unforeseeable injurie:

can transform a reasonable application of force into an excessive one. But

resulting injuries can be an indicator, however imperfect, of the severity of the

force that caused them.” (citations omitted)).

Still, there are reasons to doubt that the Deputy Defendants’ failure tc

decontaminate Edwards’s face—irresponsible as it may have been—yrose to the

level of a constitutional violation, given the relatively short time in which

Edwards was subjected to the effects of the pepper spray and the lack of any

intelligible complaints. As the Eleventh Circuit has advised:

Whenever the force used against a pretrial detainee consists in his

subjection to hazardous conditions, the “amount of force used” is a

function of two component factors—(1) the severity of those

conditions and (2) the duration of his subjection to them. These two

considerations combine to create a sliding scale: The more severe

380

the conditions, the shorter the detention need be before it amounts

to excessive force—and vice versa.

Patel, 969 F.3d at 1188.

Here, there is very little information regarding the severity of the

conditions to which Edwards was subjected. Because the video footage is

obscured, for example, the Court cannot tell how much pepper spray was usec

or whether it was applied directly to Edwards’s face. And because there is nc

evidence that Edwards ever asked for his face to be decontaminated—however

unrealistic that may have been—the Court can only speculate about the amount

of pain it caused him above and beyond other sources. Indeed, the only evidence

that the pepper spray had any effect at all is the Deputy Defendants’ own

testimony that there was “spit” and “mucus” on Edwards’s face after the melee—

there were no reports of coughing, vomiting, or breathing problems, as one

might see after a heavy dose. And, finally, while common sense may suggest

that the addition of a spit mask would exacerbate the effects of pepper spray,

Rodriguez-Bonilla has presented no evidence that that is the case—or by how

much. A perforated spit mask, after all, is inherently designed to allow the

wearer to continue breathing.

The bottom line is this: the Court is certain that, had the identifiable

effects of the pepper spray been more severe, or had Edwards been subjected to

them for much longer than he was, Rodriguez-Bonilla might be able to show

3l

that the Deputy Defendants violated Edwards’s constitutional rights. But here

the severity of the lingering pepper spray was questionable, and Edwards wa:

subjected to it for less than half an hour, making it more difficult to □□□□□□□□

that there was a constitutional violation. Were this the end of the road

analytically speaking, the Court would be forced to grapple with this

uncertainty and make a definitive ruling regarding when and if the Deputy

Defendants’ actions crossed the line into unconstitutional territory. Ultimately.

however, the second prong of the sovereign immunity test forestalls the need for

such tortured analysis. Even if the Court were to conclude that the Deputy

Defendants violated Edwards’s constitutional rights in this case, Rodriguez:

Bonilla would still need to show that these rights were “clearly established’

when that violation occurred. See Lewis v. City of West Palm Beach, 561 F.3d

1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[D]iscussion of a constitutional violation may

become unnecessary for qualified immunity purposes when the right was not

clearly established. It is therefore not mandated that the Court examine the

potential constitutional violation under . . . step one prior to analyzing whether

the right was clearly established under step two.”) As explained below,

Rodriguez-Bonilla has not met that burden.

(c) Was That Right Clearly Established?

“The usual rule in a qualified-immunity case is that, in addition to proving

a constitutional violation, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the law

32

underlying [her] claim was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the incident ir

question.” Patel, 969 F.3d at 1185. The purpose of this rule is to “ensure that

before they are subjected to suit, officers are on notice that their conduct is

unlawful.” Lewis, 561 F.3d at 1291 (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 20€

(2001)). Before Kingsley, there was an exception to this requirement for

excessive-force claims brought under the Fourteenth Amendment based on the

simple fact that the old malicious-and-sadistic standard was “so extreme that

every conceivable set of circumstances in which this constitutional violation

occurs 1s clearly established to be a violation of the Constitution.” Fennell, 559

F.3d at 1217 (quoting Johnson v. Breeden, 280 F.3d 1308, 1321 (11th Cir. 2002)).

After Kingsley, however, this exception no longer applies. Patel, 969 F.3d at

1183 (“[A]lthough the Johnson/Fennel exception continues to apply to Eighth

Amendment claims, we must abandon it as applied in the Fourteenth

Amendment context.”).

Now, as in the Fourth Amendment context, “[a] right may be clearly

established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law

with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right; (2) a

broad statement of principle within the Constitution, statute, or case law that

clearly establishes a constitutional right; or (3) conduct so egregious that a

constitutional right was clearly violated, even in the total absence of case law.”

33

Lewis, 561 F.3d at 1291-92 (11th Cir. 2009). With respect to the first route, th

Eleventh Circuit has advised as follows:

For qualified immunity purposes, a pre-existing precedent is

materially similar to the circumstances facing the official when the

specific circumstances facing the official are enough like the facts in

the precedent that no reasonable, similarly situated official could

believe that the factual differences between the precedent and the

circumstances facing the official might make a difference to the

conclusion about whether the official's conduct was lawful or

unlawful, in the light of the precedent.

Merricks v. Adkisson, 785 F.3d 553, 559 (11th Cir. 2015).

Here, “case law does not provide the necessary precedent, eithe

specifically or through broad principles, to clearly establish the right” asserte

on Edwards’s behalf. Lewis, 561 F.3d at 1299. Rodriguez-Bonilla, operatin

under the mistaken belief that “[t]here is no qualified immunity to claim

setting forth violations of a Plaintiffs right to be free from excessive force in th

custodial setting,” (Doc. 159 at 12), cites only a single case that could have pu

the Deputy Defendants on notice that their conduct was unlawful: Danley v

Allen, 540 F.3d 1298 (llth Cir. 2008). But the facts of that case are

distinguishable in a number of important ways.

In Danley, the plaintiff was brought to the jail following his arrest fo:

drunk driving. Id. at 1304. After asking the deputies several times to use the

restroom, the plaintiff was taken to a “small cell” with a “nasty” toilet in the

corner and “no toilet paper.” Id. The plaintiff used the toilet and exited the cel!

34

but continued to complain in colorful terms about the unsanitary conditions. Id

The deputy replied by telling the plaintiff “to watch his language, to shut up

and to get back into” the cell from which he had just emerged. Id. The plaintifi

responded that he was done using the toilet, but the deputy threatened tc

“spray” him if he did not comply. Jd. When the plaintiff asked what that meant

the deputy sprayed him with pepper spray “for three to five seconds,” pushed

him back into the “small, poorly ventilated” cell, and closed the door, leaving

him there for twenty minutes. Id. According to the plaintiff, the effects of the

pepper spray were so severe that he “began having trouble breathing, started tc

hyperventilate, screamed and cried to the three jailers that he could not breathe,

and begged to be let out.” Id. The deputies simply “laughed at [the plaintiff] and

made fun of him, . . . [holding] their hands to their necks in a ‘mock-chocking’

gesture.” Id.

After twenty minutes, the deputies removed the plaintiff from the cell and

allowed him to take a short, two-minute shower, which “did not permit him

adequate time for effective decontamination.” Id. The deputies then placed the

plaintiff in a group cell, where his eyes “swelled so badly that he could hardly

see” and his breathing became so labored that he “almost blacked out.” Id. at

1304-05. Even after his shower, the lingering pepper spray was apparently so

strong that the plaintiffs new cellmates complained about its effects on them.

Id. at 1304. All told, the plaintiff spent “twelve to thirteen hours” at the jail

385

without adequate decontamination or medical treatment, despite repeated pleas

for both. Id. at 1305.

Faced with these facts, the Eleventh Circuit held that the deputies ir

Danley had violated the plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment rights.

acknowledging that “subjecting a prisoner to special confinement that causes

him to suffer increased effects of environmental conditions,” including lingering

pepper spray, “can constitute excessive force.” Jd. at 1808 (emphasis added). In

that case, the court concluded, “there was no need for the jailers to continue

using force after spraying him.” Jd. at 1309. Therefore, “[t]he use of force in the

form of extended confinement in the small, poorly ventilated, pepper spray-filled

cell, when there were other readily available alternatives, was excessive.” Id.

Danley is similar in kind to the case before this Court, but it is quite

different in degree. Unlike Edwards, the plaintiff in Danley posed no threat to

the deputies, either before or after he was pepper sprayed; he was not actively

resisting the deputies, and there was no reason to think that he might try to

harm them if they attempted to promptly decontaminate him. Moreover, the

effects of the pepper spray on the plaintiff in Danley were clearly quite severe,

and he communicated those effects consistently and coherently, leaving no

doubt that the pepper spray was continuing to cause him significant pain and

difficulty breathing. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the plaintiff in

Danley was subjected to the lingering effects of the pepper spray for a full

36

“twelve to thirteen hours” before he was released—incomparably longer tha

the roughly thirty minutes between when Edwards was sprayed and when k

became unresponsive in his cell. 20 Although the plaintiff in Danley—unlik

Kdwards—was given a shower after twenty minutes, that shower ws

ineffective, prolonging the plaintiffs exposure to the pepper spray far beyon

what Edwards experienced.

Ultimately, these factual distinctions are too significant for Danley t

have clearly established “either specifically or through broad principles” tha

the Deputy Defendants’ conduct violated Edwards’s constitutional rights. Lewis

561 F.3d at 1292. As the Eleventh Circuit recognized, “Danley certainly hold

that, under certain circumstances in a prison setting, an officer violates th

Fourteenth Amendment if he does not timely and adequatelh

decontaminate ...a prisoner who is suffering from the prolonged effects of ar

incapacitating chemical spray... . [But] Danley did not set out the minimun

20 The Court recognizes the seeming insensitivity in suggesting that if only

Edwards had protested more or lived longer, Rodriguez-Bonilla would be able tc

establish a claim for excessive force—especially when at least one medical expert

believes that the pepper spray itself may have contributed in some way to his death

But to suggest otherwise would be to base this Court’s ruling on an unknowable

counterfactual. Had his condition not deteriorated, the Court cannot say whether

Edwards would have continued to suffer from the effects of the pepper spray for five

minutes or for five hours. All the Court knows is that, on these facts, roughly thirty

minutes passed between the time Edwards was sprayed and the time he became

unresponsive. The Deputy Defendants were not put on notice by Danley that delaying

the decontamination of a combative inmate for less than half an hour would cross the

line into unconstitutional territory, especially when the true effects of the pepper spray

on Edwards are unknown.

37

decontamination procedures that the Constitution requires an officer tc

pursue.” J W ex rel. Williams, 904 F.3d at 1261. And although the Deputy

Defendants’ failure to decontaminate Edwards sooner is regrettable, it was not

under these circumstances, “so far beyond the hazy border between excessive

and acceptable force that [they] had to know [they were] violating the

Constitution even without caselaw on point.” Lee, 284 F.3d at 1199 (quoting

Smith v. Mattox, 127 F.3d 1416, 1419 (11th Cir. 1997).

Because their actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional]

right, the Deputy Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Rodriguez.

Bonilla’s claim of excessive force. Accordingly, the Deputy Defendants’ Motion

for Summary Judgment will be granted as to Count I.

2. Deliberate Indifference (Count II)

In Count II, Rodriguez-Bonilla alleges that both the Deputy Defendants

and the Nurse Defendants violated another of Edwards’s Fourteenth

Amendment rights, this time by acting with deliberate indifference to his

serious medical needs. Both sets of Defendants argue that even when construing

all factual disputes and reasonable inferences in her favor, Rodriguez-Bonilla

cannot establish that their actions (or inactions) violated Edwards’s

constitutional rights. The Court agrees.

(a) Deliberate Indifference Doctrine

388

The Fourteenth Amendment, like the Eighth Amendment in the pos

conviction context, prohibits government officials from acting with □□□□□□□□□

indifference to the serious medical needs of pretrial detainees. Goerbert v. Le

Cnty., 510 F.3d 1312, 1326 (11th Cir. 2007). To prove her deliberate-indifferenc

claim Rodriguez-Bonilla needs to show that: (1) Edwards had a “serious medic:

need;” (2) the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to that need; and (3) the

indifference caused Edwards’s injury. Id.

A medical need is “serious” enough to satisfy the first prong if: (a) the nee

is “one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or on

that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity fo

a doctor's attention,” id. (quoting Hill v. Dekalb Regi Youth Det. Ctr., 40 F.3

1176, 1187 (11th Cir. 1994); or (b) “a delay in treating the need worsens th

condition.” Mann v. Taser Int'l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 13807 (11th Cir. 2009). L

either case, “the medical need must be one that, if left unattended, poses :

substantial risk of serious harm.” Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir

2003).

As for the second prong, “[a] defendant is deliberately indifferent to ;

plaintiffs serious medical need when he ‘(1) ha[s] subjective knowledge of a ris]

of serious harm; (2) disregard[s] that risk: and (3) act[s] with more than gros:

negligence.” Patel, 969 F.3d at 1188 (quoting Harper v. Lawrence Cnty., 592 F.3¢

1227, 1234 (11th Cir. 2010)). Importantly, “deliberate indifference is not ¢

39

constitutionalized version of common-law negligence.” Hoffer v. Sec *y, Fla. Dep’

of Corr., 973 F.3d 1263, 1271 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Swain v. Junior, 961 F.3¢

1276, 1288 (11th Cir. 2020)). The standard Rodriguez-Bonilla must meet □□

establish that the Defendants acted with deliberate indifference “is far □□□□

onerous than normal tort-based standards of conduct sounding in negligence,

and is in fact akin to ‘subjective recklessness as used in the criminal law.” Id

(quoting Swain, 961 F.3d at 1288).21

Rodriguez-Bonilla divides her deliberate indifference claim into twc

distinct time periods: before Edwards’s altercation with Corporal Otto, and

after. The Court will address each in turn.

(1) Before the Altercation

With respect to the first time period, Rodriguez-Bonilla argues that

“Edwards’[s] behavior before and after his arrival at the jail... demonstrated

obvious signs and symptoms of mental illness, including agitation, anxiety|[,]

and paranoia.” (Doc. 159 at 19). But, “[i]nstead of being given a medical and

21 The Eleventh Circuit has acknowledged some “tension within [its] precedent

regarding the minimum standard for culpability under the deliberate-indifference

standard,”—specifically, whether the required culpability should be stated as “more

than gross negligence,” or “more than mere negligence.” Hoffer, 973 F.3d at 1270 n.Q.

But “[t]hese competing articulations—‘gross’ vs. ‘mere’ negligence—may well represent

a distinction without a difference because . . . the Supreme Court itself has likened the

deliberate-indifference standard to ‘subjective recklessness as used in the criminal

law.” Id. (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 839 (1970)). “Accordingly, no

matter how serious the negligence, conduct that can't fairly be characterized as

reckless won't meet the Supreme Court's standard.” Jd.

40

mental health evaluation, [Edwards] was placed in holding cell 7, where h

waited for over thirty minutes.” (Id. at 18). “By failing to address Edwards's

mental health needs” as soon as he arrived at the jail, Rodriguez-Bonilla argues

“his psychological condition deteriorated to the point that it ultimately cause

the confrontation with the .. . deputies requiring the use of force.” Ud. at 19).2:

Even construing the facts in her favor, Rodriguez-Bonilla has no

established that any Defendant was deliberately indifferent to Edwards’

serious medical needs before his altercation with Corporal Otto. Assuming tha

Edwards’s mental state at the time he entered the jail was dire enough t

constitute a serious medical need—something the Defendants do not appear t

challenge—Rodriguez-Bonilla has not shown that Deputy Wagner, Sergean

Zimmerman, or Nurse Nadeau knew that Edwards was at risk of serious harm

or that they disregarded that risk in a reckless manner.

As the Defendants point out, Edwards was calm and compliant when he

arrived at the jail, giving no indication that he was still in the midst of the

violent “psychotic episode” that led to his arrest. To the extent the Defendants

did know about Edwards’s mental condition, they were not “indifferent” to it

Instead, they acted on it, giving Edwards a red jumpsuit to indicate his

22 Rodriguez-Bonilla appears to direct this portion of her claim solely against

Deputy Wagner, Sergeant Zimmerman, and Nurse Nadeau—and with good reason:

Lieutenant Fayson, Nurse Robinson, and Nurse Jones were not present until □□□□□

Edwards’s altercation with Corporal Otto.

41

assignment to the mental health unit and placing him in a solitary holding cel

away from other inmates to await further processing—including a plannec

assessment by Nurse Nadeau. Although Rodriguez-Bonilla takes issue with the

fact that Edwards was forced to wait “for over thirty minutes” before he was

retrieved by Corporal Otto, (Doc. 159 at 18), such a short delay on a “quite busy’

day does not enter—let alone exceed—the bounds of gross negligence. Finally

Rodriguez-Bonilla has not shown that the Defendants’ actions (or inactions

somehow caused Edwards further injury. To the extent that she attempts to link

Kdwards’s booking holdup to his death—a dubious causal chain to begin with—

Rodriguez-Bonilla has presented no evidence that an earlier mental health

assessment would have prevented his altercation with Corporal Otto □□□□□□

than simply expedited it.

(it) After the Altercation

After Edwards’s altercation with the deputies, the problem shifted from

his mental health to his physical health. According to Rodriguez-Bonilla,

“Edwards [s] serious medical needs . . . were outwardly apparent and obvious”

once he was strapped into the restraint chair. (Doc. 159 at 22). Despite this, she

says, both sets of Defendants “offered such cursory assistance as to amount to

no treatment at all while knowing that such indifference posed a substantial

risk of harm.” (d.; Doc. 160 at 16). As specific evidence of the Defendants’

indifference, Rodriguez-Bonilla points to their failure to medically evaluate

42

Kdwards, their failure to continuously observe him after he was wheeled int

Holding Cell 9, and their failure to immediately call 911 once he □□□□□□

unresponsive.

Again, even construing the facts in Rodriguez-Bonilla’s favor, the □□□□□□

does not show that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Edwards’:

serious medical needs. First, while it is now apparent that Edwards’s healtl

deteriorated at some point after he was restrained, Rodriguez-Bonilla has

presented no evidence that any of the Defendants knew that he was at risk □□

serious harm during the fifteen minutes he spent in Holding Cell 9 before he

suddenly became unresponsive. To the contrary, every one of the Defendants

who observed Edwards during this time testified that he showed no signs □□

medical distress. (Nadeau Dep. at 33; Wagner Dep. at 42; Zimmerman Dep. at

42; Fayson Dep. at 41).23 Second, assuming for the sake of argument that a

reasonable factfinder could conclude that the risk of serious harm to Edwards

was “obvious” following the various force techniques used against him, see

Goebert, 510 F.3d at 1827, the Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to

23 Although Rodriguez-Bonilla insists that Edwards was not continuously

observed after he was wheeled into Holding Cell 9, video footage shows that jail

personnel approached the cell window and evaluated his condition at four separate

times during the fifteen minutes he spent there. (See Receiving 2 Video at 02:15:52

(Deputy Wagner), 02:16:00 (Deputy Wagner and Nurse Nadeau), 02:18:00 (Lieutenant

Fayson); 02:22:30 (unidentified jail personnel)). Moreover, Sergeant Zimmerman

testified that he could see Edwards from his office and checked on him “frequently,

every couple minutes.” (Zimmerman Dep. at 44).

43

that risk—they monitored him regularly over the course of fifteen minutes, an

came to his aid as soon as his condition deteriorated.

While it would have been preferable for Nurse Nadeau to check Edwards’

vital signs as soon as he was strapped into the restraint chair, her choice to wai

until Edwards had calmed down did not amount to “more than gros:

negligence,” especially considering Edwards’s aggressive state and her initia

impression that he was not in medical distress. See id. (acknowledging tha

“[w]here the prisoner has suffered increased physical injury due to the delay [o

medical care],” the Eleventh Circuit has “consistently considered . . . the reasor

for the delay” in determining if a defendant acted with more than gross

negligence).24 Moreover, Rodriguez-Bonilla has provided no evidence that □□□□□□

Nadeau would have been able to detect that Edwards was suffering from a fata.

level of either “excited delirium” or “rhabdomyolysis,” or that recognizing

Edwards’s deteriorating condition fifteen minutes earlier would have made 2

difference in its outcome. In other words, Rodriguez-Bonilla has failed to show

that the Defendants’ delay had any causal connection to Edwards’s ultimate

injury.

24 Rodriguez-Bonilla makes much of the fact that jail policy “dictates that after

each use of force . . . the inmates will be examined by a member of the medical staff’

and placed under “continuous observation” for the next thirty minutes. Setting aside

the question whether this policy was followed here, a “failure to follow procedures does

not, by itself, rise to the level of deliberate indifference because doing so is at most a

form of negligence.” Taylor v. Adams, 221 F.3d 1254, 1259 (11th Cir. 2000).

44

Once Edwards became unresponsive, there was no doubt that he had -

serious medical need, and the risk of substantial injury to Edwards wa

obvious.2° Again, however, the Defendants were not deliberately indifferent t

this need—they acted on it, entering the holding cell, freeing Edwards from thi

restraint chair, and bringing Nurse Nadeau in to check his vital signs anc

administer oxygen. Rodriguez-Bonilla suggests that the Defendants shoulk

have called 911 immediately once Edwards became unresponsive—and in □□□□

sense she may be right. But the decision to allow Nurse Nadeau to evaluate

Edwards and to transport him to the jail’s own medical unit before callings

emergency services does not meet the “onerous” bar set to establish deliberate

indifference—especially given that Nurse Nadeau was actively treating

Edwards during this time and reported that he was both breathing and had =

pulse. See Keohane v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr. Sec’y, 952 F.3d 1257, 1278 (11th Cir.

2020) (“[P]rison officials do not act with deliberate indifference when they

provide medical treatment even if it is subpar... .” (quoting Lamb v. Norwood,

899 F.3d 1159, 1162 (10th Cir. 2018))). Finally, although Rodriguez-Bonilla

argues that the Defendants’ failure to call 911 “directly caus[ed] [Edwards’s]

25 This appears to be the only portion of Rodriguez-Bonilla’s deliberate-

indifference claim for which Nurses Robinson and Jones could possibly be found liable.

Although they responded to the “all available” call given by Lieutenant Fayson during

Edwards's fight with the deputies, they were not assigned to booking and returned to

their own areas shortly after Edwards was wheeled into Holding Cell 9. Nurses

Robinson and Jones did not interact with Edwards again until they arrived with a

stretcher to take him to the medical unit.

45

medical condition to needlessly deteriorate,” she cites no evidence to suppor

this assertion. (Doc. 159 at 24).26

One last point: In her Response to the Armor Defendants’ Motior

Rodriguez-Bonilla appears to imply that Nurse Nadeau was deliberatel

indifferent to Edwards’s medical needs because she did not decontaminate th

pepper spray from his face, citing Danley for the proposition that “a jailer’

refusal to permit proper decontamination violates] a clearly established right.

(Doc. 160 at 17 (citing Danley, 540 F.3d at 1313)). Although Danley made clea

that prolonged exposure to pepper spray can create a serious medical need

there is scant evidence that Edwards’s exposure rose to that level. In Danley

for example, the Eleventh Circuit based its analysis on the plaintiffs allegation:

“that he had difficulty breathing, that his eyes burned and became so □□□□□□□

he could hardly see, and that more than twelve hours after he had been sprayec

*6 In her Response to the Armor Defendants’ Motion, Rodriguez-Bonilla does cite

(rather obliquely) an “Expert Witness Declaration” made by Nurse Ashley Taylor, the

charge nurse at the jail on the date of this incident. (Doc. 160 at 23). In hen

declaration—which was made to satisfy the pre-suit requirements for Rodriguez,

Bonilla’s state-law claims—Nurse Taylor states that the Nurse Defendants’ conduct

“delayed Edwards’s ability to receive timely emergency medical care [and] directly

caused Edwards’ medical condition to needlessly deteriorate.” (Taylor Decl., Doc. 161.

5, at 2). Notably, however, Nurse Taylor does not explain how she came to this

conclusion, and she stops short of stating that the Nurse Defendants’ conduct caused

Edwards’s actual death. Indeed, at the time Nurse Taylor wrote this declaration, it

was used to support Rodriguez-Bonilla’s contention that Edwards died due tc

“respiratory distress”—a theory of death that she has seemingly abandoned. (Id. at 1).

In any event, even if Nurse Taylor’s declaration were sufficient to create a triable issue

of fact on the question of causation, Rodriguez-Bonilla has failed to show that any of

the Defendants was deliberately indifferent to Edwards’s medical needs.

46

he nearly blacked out as a result of all his breathing problems,” Danley, 54

F.3d at 1311. Indeed, the court concluded in Danley that the plaintiffs “inabilit

to breathe and his bronchospasms essentially described an asthma attack

Danley, 540 F.3d at 1311. Here, by comparison, the only effect on Edward

readily attributable to the pepper spray was the mucus and saliva on his face.

Assuming that Edwards’s exposure to the pepper spray did constitute

serious medical need—and that Nurse Nadeau knew about the substantial ris

it posed to Edwards—the Court is not convinced that Nurse Nadeau’s failure t

decontaminate him for less than thirty minutes meets the more-than-gross

negligence standard, especially given that one “reason for the delay” wa

Edwards’s own aggressive behavior. Goebert, 510 F.3d at 1327. Nurse Nadeaw’

conduct is certainly not comparable to that of the deputies in Danley, wh

allegedly mocked the plaintiffs cries for help, refused multiple requests fo

medical attention, and then left the plaintiff in lingering pepper spray for twelv

to thirteen hours after an inadequate decontamination shower. Danley, 540 □□□□

at 1304-05. Finally, to the extent Rodriguez-Bonilla is suggesting that Nurs

Nadeau’s failure to decontaminate Edwards caused his death, she has presentex

no evidence to support that theory. Indeed, Rodriguez-Bonilla’s own medica

expert retracted his original assessment that the pepper spray may hav

contributed to Edwards’s demise. (Schultz Dep. at 56-57).

A7

Ultimately, even after construing the evidence in Rodriguez-Bonilla’

favor, the Court cannot conclude that the Deputy Defendants or the Nurs¢

Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Edwards’s serious medical needs it

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, both motions for summary

judgment will be granted as to Count II.

3. Derivative Claims (Counts IIJ-V)

In Counts III-V, Rodriguez-Bonilla brings a series of derivative claim:

against the Defendants based on their status as supervisors (Count ITI), thei

failure to intervene in an ongoing constitutional violation (Count IV), and, ir

the case of Sheriff Ivey and Armor, their responsibility for the policies, practices

or customs that gave rise to that violation (Count V). As noted supra, these

claims hinge on a determination that at least one of the Defendants actually

violated Edwards's clearly established constitutional rights. See Rooney v.

Watson, 101 F.3d 1378, 1381 (11th Cir. 1996) (finding no supervisory liability

where there was no underlying violation of clearly established constitutional

rights); Sebastian v. Ortiz, 918 F.3d 1301, 1312 (11th Cir. 2019) (Plainly, an

officer cannot be liable for failing to stop or intervene when there was no

constitutional violation being committed.”); Knight ex rel. Kerr v. Miami-Dade

Cnty., 856 F.3d 795, 821 (11th Cir. 2017) (“There can be no policy-based liability

or supervisory liability when there is no underlying constitutional violation.”);

Vielma v. Gruler, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1122, 1141 (M.D. Fla. 2018) ([A] Monell claim

48

is derivative of—and thus requires—an underlying constitutional violation.”

Because the Court has determined otherwise, both motions for summar

judgment will be granted as to Counts III, IV, and V.

4. State Law Claims (Counts VI-X)

In Count VI, Rodriguez-Bonilla brings a state-law negligence clair

against the Deputy Defendants, alleging that they breached their duty of car

towards Edwards by “wantonly and/or willfully disregarding [his] human right

and/or safety” during his time at the jail, ultimately resulting in his death. (Sec

Amend. Compl., Doc. 42, § 203). In her Response to the Sheriffs Offic

Defendants’ Motion for Summary J udgment, however, Rodriguez-Bonill:

concedes that she is no longer pursuing this claim. (Doc. 159 at 2). The Motior

will therefore be granted as to Count VI.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exerciss

supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. See Carnegie

Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) (“[I]n the usual case in whick

all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors □□ □ wil

point toward declining to exercise [supplemental] jurisdiction over the

remaining state-law claims.”): see also Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086.

1089 (11th Cir. 2004) (“We have encouraged district courts to dismiss any

remaining state claims when, as here, the federal claims have been dismissed

prior to trial.”); Silas v. Sheriff of Broward Cnty., 55 F4th 863, 866 (11th Cir.

49

2022) (“A district court, exercising its already broad discretion, will rarely e

by declining supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claims that supporte

its jurisdiction are dismissed.”). Accordingly, Counts VII, VIII, IX, and X will k

remanded to state court for further adjudication.

IV. CONCLUSION

The death of Gregory Lloyd Edwards was an unquestionable tragedy

And, at times, the Defendants’ actions may have fallen short of the hig

standards of conduct we expect from government officials charged wit.

holding—and protecting—pretrial detainees. But not every decision that migh

fail in hindsight to comport with the highest levels of prudence and □□□□□□□□□□

gives rise to a constitutional claim. In this case, Rodriguez-Bonilla has failed t

meet her heavy burden of showing that the Defendants violated Edwards’

clearly established constitutional rights. Whether they had some lower level o

culpability is a question better presented to the state court. Accordingly, it i

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:

1. The Armor Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 129

is GRANTED.

2. The Sheriffs Office Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgmen:

(Doc. 131) is GRANTED as to Counts I, II, III, IV, V, and VI. The Motion is

DENIED without prejudice as to Count VII.

50

3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment providing th:

Rodriguez-Bonilla take nothing on Counts I, II, II, IV, V, and VI.

A, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court DECLINES

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims; Counts VI

VIII, IX, and X are therefore REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Elevent

Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No. 2020-02627:

CA-01.

5. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot.

6. After entry of judgment, the Clerk shall close the case.

—— th \

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, am March , 2023.

LO ff (

JOHN ANTOON II

United States District Judge

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Unrepresented Parties

51