Eric Watkins v. David Session

USCA11 Case: 22-14070 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 1 of 14

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-14070

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

ERIC WATKINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

OFFICER DAVID SESSION,

402,

WILLIAM VOGT,

Officer, Lauderhill Police Department,

DAVLIN SESSION,

Officer, Lauderhill Police Department,

CHIEF OF POLICE, LAUDERHILL POLICE DEPARTMENT,

CITY OF LAUDERHILL,

USCA11 Case: 22-14070 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 2 of 14

2 Opinion of the Court 22-14070

Defendants-Appellees,

LAUDERHILL POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:19-cv-60810-RKA

____________________

Before BRASHER, ABUDU, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Watkins appeals the district court’s order dismissing

with prejudice his third amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint

against his arresting officers William Vogt and Davlin Session,

Chief of Police Constance Stanley, and the City of Lauderhill, Flor-

ida, alleging that his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights

were violated when he was arrested for exposure of his sexual or-

gans without probable cause. On appeal, Watkins argues that: (1)

the district court erred in dismissing his claims against his arresting

officers and the chief of police in their individual capacities because

they did not have arguable probable cause to arrest him and were

not entitled to qualified immunity; and (2) the court abused its

USCA11 Case: 22-14070 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 3 of 14

22-14070 Opinion of the Court 3

discretion by dismissing his final-policymaker claim against the city

and chief of police in her official capacity because he complied with

its prior order instructing him not to file any new claims in his third

amended complaint. After thorough review, we affirm.

I.

We review de novo the district court’s decision to grant qual-

ified immunity on a motion to dismiss, accepting the factual allega-

tions in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences

in favor of the nonmoving party. Paez v. Mulvey, 915 F.3d 1276, 1284

(11th Cir. 2019). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,

to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff

pleaded sufficient factual content to allow a court to reasonably in-

fer that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id.

“[A]n amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and be-

comes the operative pleading in the case.” Lowery v. Ala. Power Co.,

483 F.3d 1184, 1219 (11th Cir. 2007).

We review a district court’s order dismissing an action for

failure to comply with the rules of the court for abuse of discretion.

Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006). “Discretion

means the district court has a range of choice, and that its decision

will not be disturbed as long as it stays within that range and is not

influenced by any mistake of law.” Id. (quotations omitted). Even

so, a dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply with court rules

is an extreme remedy that is only proper when the district court

USCA11 Case: 22-14070 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 4 of 14

4 Opinion of the Court 22-14070

finds “a clear record of delay or willful conduct and that lesser sanc-

tions are inadequate to correct such conduct.” Id. (quotations

omitted).

II.

First, we are unpersuaded by Watkins’s claim that the dis-

trict court erred in dismissing Counts One through Five, the Fourth

and Fourteenth Amendment claims against his arresting officers

and the chief of police in their individual capacities. To state a

claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant de-

prived him of a right secured under the U.S. Constitution or federal

law, and (2) the deprivation occurred under color of state law. Rich-

ardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 737 (11th Cir. 2010). Qualified im-

munity protects public officials from undue interference with their

duties and from potentially disabling threats of liability where they

are not “on notice their conduct is unlawful.” See Garcia v. Casey,

75 F.4th 1176, 1185, 1186 (11th Cir. 2023) (quotations omitted).

To establish qualified immunity, a defendant must first show

that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority

when the misconduct was alleged to have occurred. Id. at 1185.

Once the defendant has established that he was acting within his

discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show

that qualified immunity is not appropriate. Id. An arresting officer

is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that

(1) he violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the

unlawfulness of his conduct was clearly established at that time. Id.

A plaintiff can demonstrate that a right is clearly established in one

USCA11 Case: 22-14070 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 5 of 14

22-14070 Opinion of the Court 5

of three ways, namely by pointing to (1) “case law with indistin-

guishable facts,” (2) “a broad statement of principle within the

Constitution, statute, or case law,” or (3) “conduct so egregious

that a constitutional right was clearly violated, even in the total ab-

sence of case law.” Lewis v. City of W. Palm Beach, Fla., 561 F.3d 1288,

1291–92 (11th Cir. 2009).

A defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly estab-

lished right “unless the right’s contours were sufficiently definite

that any reasonable official in the defendant’s shoes would have un-

derstood that he was violating it.” Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765,

778–79 (2014). Put differently, existing precedent must have placed

“beyond debate” whether the officer violated that clearly estab-

lished right. Id. at 779 (quotations omitted). Thus, the Supreme

Court has “stressed the need to identify a case where an officer act-

ing under similar circumstances was held to have violated” the

Constitution. District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 64 (2018)

(quotations and ellipsis omitted). Courts should not “define clearly

established law at a high level of generality, since doing so avoids

the crucial question whether the official acted reasonably in the

particular circumstances that he or she faced.” Plumhoff, 572 U.S. at

779 (quotations and citation omitted).

An arrest not supported by probable cause violates the

Fourth Amendment. See Garcia, 75 F.4th at 1186. Further, “the

Constitution prohibits a police officer from knowingly making

false statements in an arrest affidavit about the probable cause for

an arrest in order to detain a citizen . . . if such false statements

USCA11 Case: 22-14070 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 6 of 14

6 Opinion of the Court 22-14070

were necessary to the probable cause.” Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d

1271, 1285 (11th Cir. 1999). However, “the existence of probable

cause at the time of arrest is an absolute bar to a subsequent con-

stitutional challenge to the arrest.” Gates v. Khokar, 884 F.3d 1290,

1297 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotations omitted); see Black v. Wigington,

811 F.3d 1259, 1267, 1269 (11th Cir. 2016) (determining that proba-

ble cause defeated a malicious prosecution claim and holding that

the plaintiff’s claim failed because the defendants were entitled to

qualified immunity).

Probable cause exists “where facts, derived from reasonably

trustworthy information, are sufficient to cause a person of reason-

able caution to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being

committed.” Garcia, 75 F.4th at 1186 (quotations omitted). In de-

termining whether an officer had probable cause to seize a suspect,

a court must “ask whether a reasonable officer could conclude that

there was a substantial chance of criminal activity.” Id. (quotations

and ellipses omitted). The validity of an arrest is not dependent on

the offense announced by the officer at the time of the arrest, and

“[p]robable cause . . . may be found if there is probable cause to

believe any crime was committed, whether or not there is probable

cause for the crime the arresting officer actually believed had been

committed.” Manners v. Cannella, 891 F.3d 959, 969 (11th Cir. 2018).

Further, a warrantless custodial arrest can be supported by proba-

ble cause even if the offense is minor or seemingly insignificant. Id.

But even without probable cause, an officer is entitled to

qualified immunity from a false arrest claim if the officer had

USCA11 Case: 22-14070 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 7 of 14

22-14070 Opinion of the Court 7

arguable probable cause to arrest the plaintiff. Garcia, 75 F.4th at

1186. Arguable probable cause exists where “a reasonable officer,

looking at the entire legal landscape at the time of the arrests, could

have interpreted the law as permitting the arrests.” Id. (quotations

omitted). Arguable probable cause is only lacking “if the state of

the law on the date of the alleged misconduct makes it obvious that

the officer’s acts violated the plaintiff’s rights in the specific set of

circumstances at issue.” Id. (quotations and brackets omitted). So,

the question becomes whether the plaintiff has satisfied his burden

of showing that, as a clearly established matter of law, an objective

officer could not have reasonably concluded there was probable

cause to arrest under the particular circumstances. Id.

In pertinent part, a person who commits acts that “are of a

nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public

decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness

them” is guilty of the Florida misdemeanor offense of breach of

the peace or disorderly conduct. Fla. Stat. § 877.03. Further, a per-

son commits the Florida misdemeanor offense of nuisance if his

behavior “tend[s] to annoy the community, injure the health of the

citizens in general, or corrupt the public morals.” Id. § 823.01.

The standard by which a supervisor may be held responsible

for the actions of a subordinate under § 1983 is extremely rigor-

ous. Piazza v. Jefferson Cty., Ala., 923 F.3d 947, 957 (11th Cir.

2019). Supervisory officials are not liable under § 1983 for the un-

constitutional acts of their subordinates based on respondeat supe-

rior. Hartley v. Parnell, 193 F.3d 1263, 1269 (11th Cir. 1999). Rather,

USCA11 Case: 22-14070 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 8 of 14

8 Opinion of the Court 22-14070

supervisors can only be held personally liable when they (1) partic-

ipate in the alleged constitutional violation, or (2) “there is a causal

connection between actions of the supervising official and the al-

leged constitutional deprivation.” Knight through Kerr v. Miami-Dade

Cnty., 856 F.3d 795, 820 (11th Cir. 2017) (quotations omitted). A

plaintiff can establish the necessary causal connection “when a his-

tory of widespread abuse puts the responsible supervisor on notice

of the need to correct the alleged deprivation, and [she] fails to do

so.” Id. (quotations omitted).

Here, the district court did not err in dismissing Counts One

through Five against Officer Vogt, Officer Session and Chief Stan-

ley in their individual capacity based on qualified immunity, since

the allegations in the third amended complaint established that

they had at least arguable probable cause to arrest Watkins for

some crime. As for his claims against the Officers, it has been and

remains undisputed that they were acting within their discretion-

ary authority at the time of the alleged constitutional violation.

Thus, Watkins bore the burden of establishing that (1) the Officers

violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from seizures un-

supported by probable cause, and (2) their actions were clearly un-

lawful at the time of the incident. Garcia, 75 F.4th at 1185.

The Officers’ arrest of Watkins was lawful if they had at

least arguable probable cause to believe that he had committed or

was committing some crime, and, notably, it does not have to be

based on the offense announced at arrest. See id. at 1186; Cannella,

891 F.3d at 969. So the question is whether the Officers had

USCA11 Case: 22-14070 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 9 of 14

22-14070 Opinion of the Court 9

arguable probable cause to arrest Watkins for either breaching the

peace or creating a public nuisance. See Manners, 891 F.3d at 969.

Each Florida statute has a broad reach in the conduct it covers -- an

individual violates either statute merely if his actions “are of a na-

ture to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public

decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness”

or if his behavior “tend[s] to annoy the community, injure the

health of the citizens in general, or corrupt the public morals.” Fla.

Stat. §§ 823.01, 877.03.

Accepting all the facts alleged in the third amended com-

plaint as true, the Officers had arguable probable cause to believe

Watkins was breaking the law or had broken the law under either

statute. Garcia, 75 F.4th at 1186. Watkins alleged that the

Lauderhill Police Department had received several anonymous re-

ports of someone urinating and defecating in the area Watkins was

found. Watkins added that he admitted at the time of his arrest to

dumping his urine in the public park. It was not unreasonable for

officers to believe the act of dumping urine in a public park would

affect the peace and enjoyment of others trying to enjoy the area,

especially considering the many recent complaints the police de-

partment had received. It was also reasonably conceivable for the

Officers to believe that dumping bodily fluids in a public area could

put the health of citizens at risk.

As for Watkins’s claim that the Officers failed to provide any

cases finding that public urination or public dumping of urine vio-

lates Florida law, Watkins himself bears the burden of showing that

USCA11 Case: 22-14070 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 10 of 14

10 Opinion of the Court 22-14070

a clearly established constitutional right was violated by the offic-

ers. Garcia, 75 F.4th at 1185–87. But he provides no caselaw sup-

porting his claim that public urination or public disposal of urine

does not violate Florida’s nuisance or breach of peace statutes and

that officers making an arrest under similar circumstances violated

a suspect’s constitutional rights. See Wesby, 583 U.S. at 64. And

we’ve found nothing from the Florida Supreme Court, this Court,

or the Supreme Court where an officer has been found to have vi-

olated an arrestee’s Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights by

placing them under arrest for the public disposal of urine.

Moreover, because the Officers had arguable probable cause

to arrest Watkins, the district court also did not err in dismissing

Count Five against Chief Stanley in her individual capacity, since

that supervisory liability claim was predicated on Counts One

through Four. As the record reflects, Watkins did not claim that

Chief Stanley personally participated in his challenged arrest. This

means that in order to support a supervisory liability claim against

Chief Stanley, Watkins was required to allege sufficient facts to

plausibly indicate a causal relationship between Stanley’s actions

and his arrest by the Officers. Knight through Kerr, 856 F.3d at 820.

However, Watkins alleged only that Chief Stanley was the final-

policymaker and effectively ratified the arrest made by the Officers.

Because the Officers had arguable probable cause to arrest Wat-

kins, he cannot demonstrate that Chief Stanley was on notice of

consistent constitutional deprivations by her officers and that she

failed to act. Id.

II.

USCA11 Case: 22-14070 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 11 of 14

22-14070 Opinion of the Court 11

We also find no merit in Watkins’s argument that the district

court abused its discretion by dismissing his final-policymaker

claim in Count Five, against the City of Lauderhill and Chief Stan-

ley in her official capacity. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), if a

plaintiff fails to prosecute his case or comply with a court order, a

defendant may move to dismiss the action. The court also has the

inherent ability to dismiss a claim in light of “its authority to en-

force its orders and provide for the efficient disposition of litiga-

tion.” Zocaras, 465 F.3d at 483. Generally, where the litigant has

been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order does

not amount to abuse of discretion. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835,

837 (11th Cir. 1989). In addition, the district court’s consideration

of alternative, lesser sanctions need not be explicit, if the record

supports the conclusion that the court implicitly found that those

sanctions would not better serve the interests of justice. Zocaras,

465 F.3d at 484.

Although both failure-to-train and final-policymaker claims

attack the execution of a government policy or custom as defined

under Monell, they require proof of different actions. See Monell v.

Dep’t of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978)

(the execution of a government’s policy or custom must inflict the

claimed injury for the local government to be held responsible un-

der § 1983). To establish a failure-to-train claim, a plaintiff must

demonstrate that a city was deliberately indifferent to citizens’

rights by knowing of constitutional violation or a high likelihood

thereof and making “a deliberate choice not to take action” in its

training programs. See Lewis, 561 F.3d at 1293. Alternatively, the

USCA11 Case: 22-14070 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 12 of 14

12 Opinion of the Court 22-14070

final-policymaker theory requires a showing that “the deci-

sionmaker possesses final authority to establish municipal policy

with respect to the action ordered” 1 and that the decisionmaker

made “a deliberate choice to follow a course of action” considering

various alternatives with respect to the subject matter in question.

Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483 (1986).

Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than for-

mal pleadings drafted by lawyers and will be liberally construed.

Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). Nev-

ertheless, pro se litigants are required to comply with applicable pro-

cedural rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).

Further, the leniency afforded pro se litigants with liberal construc-

tion “does not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a

party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sus-

tain an action.” Campbell, 760 F.3d at 1168–69 (quotations omitted).

A district court need not allow amendment in the event of undue

delay, bad faith, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, undue preju-

dice to the opposing party, or futility of the amendment. Foman v.

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

Here, we begin by noting that the district court properly dis-

missed Watkins’s claim in his third amended complaint against

Chief Stanley in her official capacity. As the record makes clear, the

district court had already dismissed any claims against Chief Stanley

1 This Court has previously recognized that, under Florida law, police chiefs

have final policymaking authority in their respective municipalities for law en-

forcement matters. See Cooper v. Dillon, 403 F.3d 1208, 1222 (11th Cir. 2005).

USCA11 Case: 22-14070 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 13 of 14

22-14070 Opinion of the Court 13

in her official capacity with prejudice in its order dismissing in part

Watkins’s second amended complaint. At the end of that order,

the district court specified that Watkins could file a third amended

complaint “alleging the counts he has already advanced against the

Defendants who now remain” and “will not be permitted to add

new counts or defendants.” This instruction was sufficient to con-

vey to Watkins that he could only replead the counts against the

same defendants that the court had dismissed without prejudice.

Moreover, when the district court later considered the De-

fendants’ motion to dismiss Watkins’s third amended complaint, it

did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Count Five against the

City of Lauderhill and Chief Stanley in her official capacity for fail-

ure to follow the court’s order. Indeed, the court’s earlier order

expressly cautioned Watkins that he would “not be permitted to

add new counts or defendants” and was only allowed to “take his

best crack” at reasserting the claims he had already alleged. Never-

theless, while Watkins had asserted a failure-to-train claim in his

second amended complaint, he asserted a final-policymaker claim

in his third amended complaint. The court correctly determined

that those were two unique claims because they required proof of

different elements. See Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 483; Lewis, 561 F.3d at

1293. Thus, by asserting the final-policymaker claim in his third

amended complaint, Watkins directly violated the court’s order.

Although dismissal with prejudice is an extreme measure,

the district court was simply enforcing its previous instruction for

Watkins not to add any new claims in his third amended complaint.

USCA11 Case: 22-14070 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 14 of 14

14 Opinion of the Court 22-14070

It reasoned that dismissal was the only appropriate sanction to rem-

edy Watkins’s repeated disregard of the court’s instructions, and it

was not required to explicitly consider lesser alternative sanctions.

See Zocaras, 465 F.3d at 483–84. Although pro se pleadings are held

to a less stringent standard than those prepared by counsel, the dis-

trict court had given Watkins multiple opportunities to amend his

complaint to state a plausible cause of action. See Campbell, 760

F.3d at 1168. The court did not abuse its discretion in determining

dismissal was appropriate because Watkins’s final-policymaker

claim would likely require additional discovery, which would ex-

pend additional time and resources even though the discovery pe-

riod had closed two years prior to this new claim being raised.

The court also was within its discretion to prohibit further

amendment of the complaint because it found it would have been

futile at such a late stage of the case and would result in undue

prejudice to the Defendants. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. Moreover,

Watkins was forewarned, after receiving three opportunities to

amend his complaint, that the next dismissal would be with preju-

dice, and Watkins still failed to heed the court’s unambiguous in-

struction. See Moon, 863 F.2d at 837.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Wat-

kins’s third amended complaint.

AFFIRMED.