The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
ZACHARY THOMAS CHAMBLISS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 5:24-cv-140-RH/MJF
CHIEF HAYES BAGGETT,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff alleges that after his roommate attacked him and another
person attempted to attack Plaintiff, the Marianna Police Department
failed to investigate these incidents. Because federal law does not oblige
the local police to investigate crimes, Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible
claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court, therefore,
should dismiss this civil action to the extent Plaintiff attempts to state a
claim under § 1983 and should decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Florida negligence claim.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 5, 2024, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
commenced this civil action against Defendant Hayes Baggett in his official
capacity as the Chief of the Marianna Police Department. Doc. 1. After
screening Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the
undersigned afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint
because Plaintiff had failed to state a plausible claim for relief. Doc. 7.
Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff asserts
that Marianna police officers failed to investigate Plaintiff’s former
roommate after this individual attacked Plaintiff. Doc. 10 at 5; id. at 2–5
¶¶ 2–20. Likewise, the police failed to investigate another individual who
attempted to attack Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 20–22. Plaintiff does not identify a
federal right that Defendant purportedly violated. Plaintiff merely asserts
that Defendant was negligent under Florida law. See id. at 6–12.
II. STANDARD
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. Therefore, the District
Court must dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, or “seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–
(iii). Determining whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can
be granted is governed by the standard set forth in Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Mitchell v.
Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1485 (11th Cir. 1997). The District Court must
accept all well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint as true and
evaluate all reasonable inferences derived from those facts in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Hunnings v. Texaco, Inc., 29 F.3d 1480, 1483
(11th Cir. 1994). To survive dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Failure to State a Plausible Claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege a person
acting under the color of state law deprived him of a federal right. Little v.
City of North Miami, 805 F.2d 962, 965 (11th Cir. 1986). To hold a
municipality or county liable under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege
that the municipality itself caused the alleged constitutional violation.
Cook ex rel. Est. of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe Cnty., Fla., 402 F.3d 1092,
1116 (11th Cir. 2005). That is, a plaintiff must allege that “(1) his
constitutional rights were violated; (2) that the municipality had a custom
or policy that constituted deliberate indifference to that constitutional
right; and (3) that the policy or custom caused the violation.” McDowell v.
Brown, 392 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing City of Canton v.
Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989)).
Here, Plaintiff has not alleged that the Defendant deprived him of a
right secured by the Constitution or any federal law. See Doc. 10. He merely
alleges that the Marianna Police Department did not conduct an
“investigation . . . into an incident in which [Plaintiff] sustained great
bodily harm.” Id. at 5. But there exists no federal right to have the local
police investigate an alleged crime. Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006
(9th Cir. 1985); Beard v. O’Neal, 728 F.2d 894, 899 (7th Cir. 1984); see also,
e.g., Stringer v. Doe, 503 F. App’x 888, 890–91 (11th Cir. 2013). Federal law
also does not create a right to have the local police arrest a criminal,
regardless of the egregiousness of the crime committed. Quire v. Miramer
Police Dep’t, 595 F. App’x 883, 886 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Town of Castle
Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 768 (2005)).
Because Plaintiff has failed to identify a federal right that Defendant
violated, he has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
B. Any Further Amendment Would be Futile
“Ordinarily, a [pro se] party must be given at least one opportunity to
amend before the district court dismisses the complaint” with prejudice.
Corsello v. Lincare, Inc., 428 F.3d 1008, 1014 (11th Cir. 2005). Therefore,
before dismissing a lawsuit with prejudice, a district court should “advise
a pro se plaintiff of the deficiencies in his complaint and give him an
opportunity to amend.” Horn v. Estate of Camacho, 817 F. App’x 872, 875
(11th Cir. 2020).
On August 20, 2024, the undersigned issued an order which
explained to Plaintiff that he failed to state a plausible claim under § 1983.
Doc. 7. The undersigned afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his
complaint. Id. Despite being afforded this opportunity, Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint that similarly failed to state a claim for relief under
federal law. Further amendment would be futile because Plaintiff cannot
overcome the fact that federal law does not create a right to have the local
police investigate persons or incidents. Therefore, it is appropriate for the
District Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim under § 1983 with prejudice.
C. The District Court Should Decline to Exercise Supplemental
Jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Claim Under Florida Law
Plaintiff also attempts to assert a negligence claim under Florida law.
Doc. 10 at 6–11. Plaintiff does not state facts which would permit the
District Court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction by virtue of diversity
of the parties. Accordingly, the District Court could exercise only
supplemental jurisdiction.
“The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendant
state claims rests within the discretion of the district court.” Raney v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (11th Cir. 2004). Generally,
however, district courts should “dismiss any remaining state claims when,
as here, the federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.” Lobo v.
Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 704 F.3d 882, 891 n.13 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting
Raney, 370 F.3d at 1089). Accordingly, the District Court should decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim and
dismiss this claim without prejudice to allow Plaintiff to pursue that claim
in a Florida court.
IV. CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff failed to state a plausible federal claim, the
undersigned respectfully recommends that the District Court:
1. DISMISS Plaintiff’s section 1983 claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);
2. DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
state law claims and DISMISS Plaintiff’s state law claim without
prejudice; and
3. DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 25th day of October, 2024.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to the
undersigned to make recommendations regarding
dispositive matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also
28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Objections to proposed findings and
recommendations must be filed within fourteen (14)
days of the date of the report and recommendation.
Any different deadline that may appear on the
electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. An
objecting party must serve a copy of its objections
upon all other parties. A party who fails to object to the
magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations
contained in this report and recommendation waives
the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s
order based on unobjected-to factual and legal
conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.