Chanon Miller v. Juan Ramirez

USCA11 Case: 23-13753 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2025 Page: 1 of 7

[PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13753

____________________

CHANON MILLER,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants,

JUAN F. RAMIREZ,

STEVEN L. MURRAY,

DANIEL S. FELLOWS,

IRA S. PESKOWITZ,

BRISA LANDA,

NICOLE A. BITNER,

USCA11 Case: 23-13753 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2025 Page: 2 of 7

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13753

Defendants-Appellants.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:23-cv-80907-RLR

____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and GRANT and LUCK, Circuit

Judges.

WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge:

This appeal requires us to address a district court’s failure to

adjudicate a defense of qualified immunity raised in a motion to

dismiss. After Chanon Miller was arrested for simple battery, she

sued Palm Beach County deputy sheriffs for violating her constitu-

tional right to be free from an unreasonable seizure. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. The deputies moved to dismiss Miller’s second amended

complaint based on qualified immunity. The district court denied

the deputies’ motion on the ground that the issue was “more ap-

propriately resolved at the summary judgment sta[g]e or later in

the proceedings.” Because qualified immunity shields defendants

from the burdens of litigation, the district court erred by failing to

rule on the defense of qualified immunity. We vacate and remand

for further proceedings.

USCA11 Case: 23-13753 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2025 Page: 3 of 7

23-13753 Opinion of the Court 3

I. BACKGROUND

On January 8, 2022, deputies from the Palm Beach County

Sheriff’s Office arrested Chanon Miller for simple battery against

her ex-fiancé, Eric McGregor. Miller sued the Sheriff’s Office for

failure to train its deputies and alleged that unnamed deputies had

violated her right to be free from unreasonable seizure through

false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. See id.

After the Sheriff’s Office moved to dismiss, the district court

denied the motion. In its order, the district court concluded that

“the factual allegations are sufficient to state a plausible claim for

relief.” It acknowledged the Sheriff’s Office’s arguments that Mil-

ler’s burden of proof required her to present “evidence of a history

or widespread practice of prior similar constitutional abuses” and

that “the deputies clearly had probable cause to arrest [Miller]

based on the [c]omplaint’s allegations.” But it concluded that

“these arguments present questions of law and fact that are more

appropriately resolved at the summary judgment stage or later in

the proceedings.” And, “[v]iewing [Miller]’s allegations as true, the

[c]ourt conclude[d] that [Miller]’s allegations survive a motion to

dismiss.” The district court also granted leave for Miller to file an

amended complaint that named the appropriate defendants.

Miller filed an amended complaint that named Palm Beach

County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw in his official capacity and deputies

Juan Ramirez, Steven Murray, Daniel Fellows, Ira Peskowitz, Brisa

Landa, and Nicole Bitner in their individual capacities. The

amended complaint alleged a count against each defendant

USCA11 Case: 23-13753 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2025 Page: 4 of 7

4 Opinion of the Court 23-13753

separately. The deputies moved to dismiss based on qualified im-

munity.

In a three-sentence paperless order, the district court denied

their motion “for all of the reasons set forth in the [c]ourt’s prior

order.” The district court reasoned that “[a]lthough additional

[d]efendants have been added to this case, the core factual allega-

tions are the same and the [c]ourt previously ruled that those fac-

tual allegations are sufficient to state a claim for a civil rights viola-

tion.” It concluded that “[a]lthough the [d]efendants argue that

qualified immunity should apply to their alleged actions, as the

[c]ourt previously summarized[,] that is ‘more appropriately re-

solved at the summary judgment sta[g]e or later in the proceed-

ings.’”

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the denial of a motion to dismiss based on quali-

fied immunity de novo. Paez v. Mulvey, 915 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir.

2019).

III. DISCUSSION

“The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that govern-

ment officials performing discretionary functions generally are

shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Townsend

v. Jefferson Cnty., 601 F.3d 1152, 1157 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted). This doctrine “balances two

USCA11 Case: 23-13753 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2025 Page: 5 of 7

23-13753 Opinion of the Court 5

important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable

when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield of-

ficials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they per-

form their duties reasonably.” Id. (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted). Based on this doctrine, courts must “expeditiously

. . . weed out suits” that force public officials, “who rightly claim[]

qualified immunity to engage in expensive and time consuming

preparation to defend the suit on its merits.” Siegert v. Gilley, 500

U.S. 226, 232 (1991).

As the Supreme Court has made clear, qualified immunity is

“an immunity from suit” that grants officials “an entitlement not

to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.” Mitchell v. For-

syth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (emphasis omitted). That privilege is

“effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Id.

Qualified immunity grants officials “a right not to be subjected to

litigation beyond the point at which immunity is asserted.” Howe v.

City of Enterprise, 861 F.3d 1300, 1302 (11th Cir. 2017). The Supreme

Court and this Court have “repeatedly . . . stressed the importance

of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in lit-

igation.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200 (2001), rev’d on other

grounds, Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted); accord Jordan v. Doe, 38 F.3d

1559, 1565 (11th Cir. 1994); Pace v. Capobianco, 283 F.3d 1275, 1284

(11th Cir. 2002); Townsend, 601 F.3d at 1157.

When an official asserts qualified immunity, the district

court must consider the issue on a claim-by-claim and defendant-

USCA11 Case: 23-13753 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2025 Page: 6 of 7

6 Opinion of the Court 23-13753

by-defendant basis. See Alcocer v. Mills, 906 F.3d 944, 951 (11th Cir.

2018) (“[E]ach defendant is entitled to an independent qualified-im-

munity analysis as it relates to his or her actions and omissions.”).

The district court must first decide whether “the defendant was en-

gaged in a discretionary function.” Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Har-

land, 370 F.3d 1252, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004). If so, “the burden shifts

to the plaintiff to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified

immunity.” Id. (emphasis omitted). The plaintiff must then estab-

lish that “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and

(2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged vio-

lation.” Id. District courts may “exercise their sound discretion in

deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analy-

sis should be addressed first.” Townsend, 601 F.3d at 1158 (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted). But before rejecting a de-

fense of qualified immunity, a district court must address each issue

with “sufficient explanation[] . . . to provide this Court with an op-

portunity to in meaningful appellate review.” Danley v. Allen, 480

F.3d 1090, 1091 (11th Cir. 2007).

We have repeatedly held that a district court errs when it

reserves ruling on an official’s entitlement to qualified immunity.

In Collins v. School Board of Dade County, for example, we held that

a failure to rule on qualified immunity raised in a motion for sum-

mary judgment effectively denied the defendants the right not to

stand trial. 981 F.2d 1203, 1205 (11th Cir. 1993). In Howe v. City of

Enterprise, we likewise held that the district court erred when it re-

served its ruling on the officers’ entitlement to qualified immunity

upon a motion to dismiss. 861 F.3d at 1301–03. And, in Chesser v.

USCA11 Case: 23-13753 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2025 Page: 7 of 7

23-13753 Opinion of the Court 7

Sparks, we emphasized that an entitlement to qualified immunity

“raised . . . on a motion to dismiss . . . will be granted if the com-

plaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitu-

tional right.” 248 F.3d 1117, 1121 (11th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A district court

must adjudicate a defense of qualified immunity at whatever stage

it is raised.

The district court erred when it refused to resolve this

threshold legal issue. As an immunity from suit, qualified immun-

ity is not, as the district court stated, “more appropriately resolved

at the summary judgment sta[g]e or later in the proceedings.” To

the contrary, our precedents mandate its resolution “at the earliest

possible stage in litigation.” Jordan, 38 F.3d at 1565 (citation and in-

ternal quotation marks omitted). Even if the paperless order en-

tered here could be construed as concluding that Miller’s complaint

alleged a constitutional violation, the district court failed to provide

“sufficient explanation[]” to allow us to “engage in meaningful ap-

pellate review.” Danley, 480 F.3d at 1091. It failed to conduct the

required claim-by-claim and defendant-by-defendant analysis, ad-

dress whether the deputies acted within their discretionary author-

ity, or decide whether any alleged violation was clearly established.

And it erred by reserving its ruling until summary judgment.

IV. CONCLUSION

We VACATE the order denying the deputies’ motion to dis-

miss and REMAND with instructions to rule on their entitlement

to qualified immunity.