“Where a more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim, a plaintiff must be given at least one chance to amend the complaint before the district court dismisses the action with prejudice.”
How later courts described this case
- “Where a more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim, a plaintiff must be given at least one chance to amend the complaint before the district court dismisses the action with prejudice.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
AVERY TYRONE GODBOLT,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:23-cv-1632-WFJ-JSS
TAMPA POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Avery Tyrone Godbolt, a Florida inmate, initiated this action by
filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). In his complaint, Mr.
Godbolt asserted claims for “wrongful arrest” and “false imprisonment,” alleging that he
was charged with unspecified offenses after a woman named Cedria Jefferson falsely
accused him of “attack[ing] her and beat[ing] her up.” (Id. at 4-5). On September 8, 2023,
the Court dismissed Mr. Godbolt’s complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 10). The Court
explained that the sole named defendants in this action—the Tampa Police Department and
the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office—are not subject to suit under § 1983. (Id. at 2).
The Court also held that Mr. Godbolt failed to state a claim for false arrest or imprisonment
because he alleged no “facts showing that he was arrested without probable cause.” (Id.)
Mr. Godbolt subsequently filed a document titled “Breif [sic],” in which he states
that he “was ask[ed] and court ordered to file a breif [sic] with a deadline.” (Doc. 11 at 1).
The Court liberally construes Mr. Godbolt’s filing as an amended complaint. In his
construed amended complaint, Mr. Godbolt alleges that (1) Ms. Jefferson “stabbed [him]
up” because he “was sleeping with other women,” (2) the police arrested him based on Ms.
Jefferson’s false accusation that he had “attacked her,” and (3) he prevailed at trial, thus
“prov[ing]” that he “was the victim.” (Id. at 1-2). Mr. Godbolt claims that he “suffered
irreparable damages” due to his “wrongful arrest, incarceration, and charges.” (Id. at 2).
Mr. Godbolt’s construed amended complaint must be dismissed because it suffers
from the same deficiencies as his initial complaint. He still fails to name any defendant
subject to suit under § 1983. And even if he had named a proper defendant, his claim for
false arrest or imprisonment remains deficient. As the Court previously explained to Mr.
Godbolt, “[a]n arrest without a warrant and lacking probable cause violates the Constitution
and can underpin a § 1983 claim, but the existence of probable cause at the time of arrest
is an absolute bar to a subsequent constitutional challenge to the arrest.” Brown v. City of
Huntsville, Ala., 608 F.3d 724, 734 (11th Cir. 2010). “Probable cause exists where the facts
within the collective knowledge of law enforcement officials, derived from reasonably
trustworthy information, are sufficient to cause a person of reasonable caution to believe
that a criminal offense has been or is being committed.” Id.
Mr. Godbolt’s construed amended complaint fails to allege facts showing that he
was arrested without probable cause. Mr. Godbolt claims that the police arrested him based
on Ms. Jefferson’s false accusation that he “attacked her.” (Doc. 11 at 2). But Mr. Godbolt
alleges no facts showing that law enforcement knew the accusation was false. Moreover,
“[i]t is well established that police officers may generally rely on eyewitness accounts and
victim statements to establish probable cause.” Bright v. Thomas, 754 F. App’x 783, 787
(11th Cir. 2018) (collecting cases). Because Mr. Godbolt fails to allege the absence of
probable cause for his arrest, he has not stated a claim for false arrest or imprisonment.
The Court previously identified the deficiencies in Mr. Godbolt’s allegations and
gave him an opportunity to amend his complaint. (Doc. 10 at 2-4). Nevertheless, the
construed amended complaint fails to state any viable claims. Because further amendment
would be futile, the Court declines to grant Mr. Godbolt another opportunity to amend.!
See Woldeab v. Dekalb Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 885 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2018) (“Where
a more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim, a plaintiff must be given at least
one chance to amend the complaint before the district court dismisses the action with
prejudice.”).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. Mr. Godbolt’s construed amended complaint (Doc. 11) is DISMISSED with
prejudice.
2. Mr. Godbolt’s construed motion for copies (Doc. 11-1) is DENIED.
3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment against Mr. Godbolt and to CLOSE
this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on October 18, 2023.
litho,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
' Mr. Godbolt attached a “Note” to his construed amended complaint requesting that the Clerk send him a
“copy of the police report for the charge [he] won trial on.” (Doc. 11-1). The Court is not in possession of
the police report or any other documents from Mr. Godbolt’s state-court case. Accordingly, the construed
motion for copies is denied.
-3-