The opinion
USCA11 Case: 24-11741 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2025 Page: 1 of 9
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-11741
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JEFF FLEURANVILLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MIAMI DADE COUNTY,
JOSEPH WISLIN,
Individual Capacity,
GREGORY CHEEVER,
Individual Capacity,
ERNESTO MIRANDA,
Individual Capacity,
LASHONYA LEONARD,
Individual Capacity, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 24-11741 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2025 Page: 2 of 9
2 Opinion of the Court 24-11741
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-21797-KMM
____________________
Before ROSENBAUM, ABUDU, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jeff Fleuranville appeals the district court’s grant of the Ap-
pellees’ motion to dismiss his amended complaint alleging viola-
tions of his civil rights under federal and Florida law. Fleuranville
asserts the district court erred in determining (1) his federal and
state law claims of false arrest were barred by qualified immunity,
and (2) his state law malicious prosecution claims were barred be-
cause Appellees had probable cause to arrest him. 1 After review, 2
we affirm the district court.
1 Fleuranville also appeals “the district court’s finding that the amended com-
plaint does not contain sufficient factual allegation to meet the pleading stand-
ard and defeat qualified immunity.” However, while Appellees argued that
Fleuranville’s amended complaint did not meet the pleading standards in their
motion to dismiss, the district court did not grant the motion to dismiss based
on the failure to meet pleading standards. We do not address this argument.
2 “We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant or deny the defense
of qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, accepting the factual allegations
USCA11 Case: 24-11741 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2025 Page: 3 of 9
24-11741 Opinion of the Court 3
I. BACKGROUND
On May 11, 2018, a 74-year-old woman accused her son,
Fleuranville, of sexually assaulting her on multiple occasions. The
victim disclosed the sexual assaults to her daughter. The arrest af-
fidavit contained the following statement:
The victim advised that on an unknown date in No-
vember 2017, the subject called her into a bedroom in
her single family residence. Once inside, the subject
pushed her onto the floor, removed her clothing and
forced penile vaginal intercourse on her. She advised
that she attempted to resist the defendant but she was
unable to do so due to his strength. During a strug-
gle, the defendant became upset and slapped her sev-
eral times. The victim further advised that at the con-
clusion of the sexual assault, the defendant demanded
she perform fellatio on him and she refused. There-
after, the defendant stood up and kicked her several
times. After kicking her, the defendant threatened to
kill her if she called the police or told anyone of the
sexual battery. The victim stated she was in fear for
her life. As a result, she was unable to leave the home
for several days.
Fleuranville was arrested on twelve felony counts for sexual
battery, kidnapping, and battery on the elderly on May 11, 2018.
On May 31, 2018, the sexual battery charges were no actioned, and
in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s
favor.” Davis v. Carter, 555 F.3d 979, 981 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks
omitted).
USCA11 Case: 24-11741 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2025 Page: 4 of 9
4 Opinion of the Court 24-11741
the charges were amended to one count of kidnapping and one
count of battery. On July 25, 2019, the State entered a nolle prosequi
on the remaining charges against Fleuranville, and the case was
closed.
Fleuranville filed a civil rights action. His amended com-
plaint asserted federal false arrest claims against Miami-Dade
County Police Department Officers Joseph Wislin, Gregory
Cheever, Ernesto Miranda, and Darlene Cordero 3 (Counts 1-4); fed-
eral malicious prosecution claims against Officers Wislin, Cheever,
Miranda, Cordero, and Lashonya Leonard (Counts 5-10); state false
arrest claims against each officer (Counts 11-15); and state mali-
cious prosecution claims against each officer (Counts 16-20). Mi-
ami-Dade County was not a named defendant in the amended
complaint.
In his amended complaint, he stated he “resided with and
cared for his biological mother,” and “was the only family member
to make sure that her needs were met and that the household bills
were paid.” His mother “suffers from dementia and other mental
health disorders and could not be left alone,” and Fleuranville “ve-
hemently denies ever inappropriately touching or harming his
mentally ill mother who suffer[s] from dementia, memory loss,
and other mental health disorders.” He also stated that “Law En-
forcement is familiar with the alleged victim as she has called the
3 Officer Cordero was never served.
USCA11 Case: 24-11741 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2025 Page: 5 of 9
24-11741 Opinion of the Court 5
police to the home on numerous occasions for various complaint[s]
which were all unfounded.”
The Appellees moved to dismiss the amended complaint, ar-
guing they had probable cause to arrest Fleuranville based on the
victim’s statement, summarized on the arrest affidavit and corrob-
orated by the victim’s daughter. The district court granted the mo-
tion to dismiss, dismissing the false arrest claims because probable
cause entitled the Appellees to qualified immunity on the federal
claims and precluded the state law claims. The district court also
dismissed the malicious prosecution claims because the existence
of probable cause foreclosed both the state and federal claims.
II. DISCUSSION
A. False Arrest
To receive qualified immunity, an “officer bears the initial
burden to prove that he acted within his discretionary author-
ity.” Dukes v. Deaton, 852 F.3d 1035, 1041 (11th Cir. 2017). The plain-
tiff then bears the burden of showing “the defendant violated a con-
stitutional right” and “the right was clearly established at the time
of the violation.” Barnes v. Zaccari, 669 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir.
2012). Because Fleuranville does not dispute the Appellees were
engaged in a discretionary function, he bears the burden of proving
they were not entitled to qualified immunity.
Fleuranville asserts the Appellees violated the Fourth
Amendment by falsely arresting him. “To succeed on a false arrest
claim, a plaintiff must establish (1) a lack of probable cause and
(2) an arrest.” Richmond v. Badia, 47 F.4th 1172, 1180 (11th Cir.
USCA11 Case: 24-11741 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2025 Page: 6 of 9
6 Opinion of the Court 24-11741
2022). “Accordingly, when the government has probable cause to
arrest someone, a false arrest claim necessarily fails.” Id.
In the context of an arrest, probable cause exists “when the
facts, considering the totality of the circumstances and viewed
from the perspective of a reasonable officer, establish ‘a probability
or substantial chance of criminal activity.’” Washington v. Howard,
25 F.4th 891, 898-99 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting District of Columbia v.
Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 57 (2018)). In assessing whether there was prob-
able cause for an arrest, we “ask whether a reasonable officer could
conclude that there was a substantial chance of criminal activ-
ity.” Id. at 902 (quotation marks and alteration omitted). “Probable
cause does not require conclusive evidence and is not a high
bar.” Id. at 899 (quotation marks omitted).
Fleuranville contends there was not probable cause to arrest
him because the Appellees should have done a more thorough in-
vestigation 4 before arresting him, rather than relying solely on his
mother’s statement. Specifically, he asserts “[a]t the moment Plain-
tiff was arrested the facts and circumstances within [the] officers’
knowledge w[ere] not sufficient to warrant a prudent police officer
to belie[v]e that the Plaintiff had committed or was committing an
4 In his amended complaint, Fleuranville alleges “Defendants did not produce
any evidence of sexual abuse, no rape kit performed, no medical records, no
adult protective service investigation, no evidence of kidnap, no audio tape,
no eyewitness, no polygraph test performed, written confession, no marks, no
bruises, evidence of neglect, video camera, or credible witness.”
USCA11 Case: 24-11741 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2025 Page: 7 of 9
24-11741 Opinion of the Court 7
offense.” Fleuranville also alleges his mother suffered from de-
mentia, memory loss, and other mental health disorders.
We have stated that “[g]enerally, an officer is entitled to rely
on a victim’s criminal complaint as support for probable cause.”
Rankin v. Evans, 133 F.3d 1425, 1441 (11th Cir. 1998). In Rankin, the
accused asserted an officer was not entitled to rely on the child vic-
tim’s statements “because the victim’s age and inconsistencies ren-
dered her statements unreliable.” Id. We concluded that “although
a child victim’s statements must be evaluated in light of her age,”
her statements, considered along with the other supporting evi-
dence were sufficiently reliable and trustworthy to form the basis
for probable cause. Id.
Similarly, the Appellees here had probable cause to arrest
Fleuranville because they could rely on the victim’s statements that
Fleuranville had sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions. De-
spite Fleuranville’s general allegation that “[l]aw enforcement is fa-
miliar with the alleged victim as she has called the police to the
home on numerous occasions for various complaint[s] which were
all unfounded,” he does not allege that any of the Appellees in this
case knew of his mother’s dementia and mental health history. The
victim’s detailed statements provided in the complaint/arrest affi-
davit identifying Fleuranville as her rapist were enough for proba-
ble cause at the time of the arrest. See Rankin, 133 F.3d at 1441.
Further, the victim also disclosed to her daughter that she was
raped. Because the Appellees had probable cause to arrest Fleuran-
ville, they did not violate his constitutional rights. See Richmond, 47
USCA11 Case: 24-11741 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2025 Page: 8 of 9
8 Opinion of the Court 24-11741
F.4th at 1180, and the Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity
on this claim. See Barnes, 669 F.3d at 1303. Additionally, as “[p]rob-
able cause bars a claim for false arrest under Florida law just as it
does under federal law,” Crocker v. Beatty, 995 F.3d 1232,1245 (11th
Cir. 2021), Fleuranville’s claims for false arrest under Florida law
also fail.
B. Malicious Prosecution
To establish a claim of malicious prosecution, a plaintiff
must prove (1) “the elements of the common law tort of malicious
prosecution,” and (2) “he suffered a seizure pursuant to legal pro-
cess that violated the Fourth Amendment.” Laskar v. Hurd, 972 F.3d
1278, 1284 (11th Cir. 2020). The elements of malicious prosecution
require Fleuranville to show the officials instituted criminal process
against him “with malice and without probable cause” and the
prosecution against him terminated in his favor. Id. Florida law
also requires the absence of probable cause to support a claim of
malicious prosecution. See Durkin v. Davis, 814 So. 2d 1246, 1248
(Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
As the district court determined, the finding that the Appel-
lees had probable cause to arrest him also forecloses Fleuranville’s
federal and state law malicious prosecution claims.
III. CONCLUSION
The district court did not err in determining that the Appel-
lees are entitled to qualified immunity on Fleuranville’s federal
false arrest and malicious prosecution claims, and that the state law
USCA11 Case: 24-11741 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2025 Page: 9 of 9
24-11741 Opinion of the Court 9
claims alleging the same should also be dismissed. We affirm the
district court.
AFFIRMED.