Edgar v. Brunson (CONSENT)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BOBBY WAYNE EDGAR, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 1:22-CV-620-KFP

)

MARION B. BRUNSON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 30) filed in response to

Plaintiff Bobby Wayne Edgar’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 26). Upon consideration of the

motion, Edgar’s response (Doc. 36), and Defendants’ reply (Doc. 39), the Court ORDERS

that the motion be GRANTED and that the case be DISMISSED.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Edgar filed his Complaint (Doc. 1) on October 18, 2022. When Defendants moved

to dismiss, Edgar requested and was granted leave to amend. Docs. 21, 25. Edgar’s

Amended Complaint (Doc. 26) seeks damages against officers with the City of Elba Police

Department who are identified as Marion B. Brunson, Justin A. Spence, Anthony Tew, and

seven fictitious defendants. He also names the City of Elba as a defendant. Id.

Edgar asserts several federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claims Defendants

Brunson, Spence, and Tew deprived him of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights

in conjunction with his arrest (Counts I–II) and that these Defendants denied him medical

care (Count IV).1 Edgar also asserts a state-law claim against these Defendants for assault

and battery (Count III). Against Defendant Brunson and several fictitious parties, Edgar

alleges a state-law wantonness claim (Count VII). The remaining Counts V and VI are

state-law claims asserted solely against fictitious parties. Although the City of Elba is

identified as a defendant in the case caption, no claims are asserted against it.2

Defendants have moved to dismiss all of Edgar’s claims (Doc. 30) and attached the

following exhibits to their supporting memorandum (Doc. 31): the police report (Doc. 31-

1); Officer Brunson’s first body-camera video from June 22, 2021 (Doc. 31-2); Officer

Brunson’s second body-camera video from June 22 (Doc. 31-3); and Officer Brunson’s

body-camera video from a previous encounter with Edgar on June 16 (Doc. 31-4).3 To

complete the briefing before the Court, Edgar submitted a brief in opposition to the motion

(Doc. 36), and Defendants filed a reply brief (Doc. 39).

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1331, as Edgar alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Personal jurisdiction is uncontested,

and the Court concludes that venue properly lies in the Middle District of Alabama. See 28

U.S.C. § 1391.

1 Edgar also asserts this claim against some of the fictitious defendants.

2 While no claims have been asserted against the City of Elba, Defendants’ motion seeks dismissal of any

claim against the City based on municipal immunity. Edgar did not respond to this part of the motion.

Because the Court finds no claim has been asserted against the City, no finding on the applicability of

municipal immunity is warranted, and the City must be dismissed as a party.

3 Defendants also attached as Exhibit 5 the taser activity download from June 22, 2021. Doc. 31-5.

Defendants subsequently withdrew the taser activity download. Doc. 39 at 2. Accordingly, this exhibit is

not before the Court.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When evaluating a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6), a court must take the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe them in

the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Resnick v. AvMed, Inc., 693 F.3d 1317, 1321–22

(11th Cir. 2012). To survive Rule 12(b)(6) scrutiny, “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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 570 (2007)).

Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain “a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and

each factual allegation should be “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) &

(d)(1). To “‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face[,]’” a plaintiff must “plead[]

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is

liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at

555, 570). With this in mind, the Court accepts Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and

construes the Complaint in his favor. Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th

Cir. 2008).

IV. INCORPORATED EVIDENCE

Edgar concedes that the two body-camera videos from June 22, 2021, are properly

considered by the Court, as they are incorporated in the Amended Complaint. Doc. 36 at

12. Accordingly, the Court accepts Edgar’s concession and considers these exhibits.

Edgar argues that Defendants’ remaining exhibits—the police report and Officer

Brunson’s body-camera footage from June 16, 2021—are not properly incorporated in his

claims and, therefore, cannot be considered on a motion to dismiss. Doc. 36 at 10. Edgar

is correct that the district court is generally limited to the four corners of a plaintiff’s

complaint when reviewing a motion to dismiss, but a court “may also consider those

‘documents incorporated into the complaint by reference[] and matters of which a court

may take judicial notice.’” Quinette v. Reed, 805 F. App’x 696, 700 (11th Cir. 2020)

(quoting Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007)). “A

document or thing is incorporated by reference into a complaint where (1) it is central to

the plaintiff’s claim, (2) its contents were alleged in the complaint, and (3) no party

questions those contents.” Id. “When a document considered at the motion to dismiss stage

contains ambiguities . . . subject to interpretation, courts should interpret all ambiguities in

the plaintiff’s favor.” Edwards v. Dothan City Sch., 82 F.4th 1306, 1311 (11th Cir. 2023)

(internal quotations omitted).

Here, the Court finds that all three of these elements are met with respect to the

police report. First, it is central to Edgar’s claims. He mentions the police report twice in

his pleading: first when he asserts the contusion he suffered is noted in the police report

and again when he uses this fact to demonstrate Brunson’s knowledge of this injury (Doc.

26 ¶¶ 79, 84), which he must prove on his denial-of-medical-care claim. Second, the

contents of the report (the fact that the contusion was noted) are alleged in the Amended

Complaint. Third, neither party challenges the authenticity of the police report.4 Thus, in

this particular context, the police report is incorporated into the Amended Complaint by

reference, and the Court may consider its contents at this stage of litigation.5

With respect to Officer Brunson’s body-camera footage from June 16, the Court

finds that the first of the required three elements, that the footage is central to Edgar’s

claims, is not met. Although Edgar mentions the June 16 encounter throughout his

Amended Complaint to illustrate that Brunson previously met Edgar and was aware he

suffered from ataxia (Doc. 26 ¶¶ 13–18), it is not central to Edgar’s claims because he does

not rely on the June 16 video to prove any of his claims. Accordingly, it is not incorporated

by reference in the Amended Complaint. Thus, the Court considers only Brunson’s police

report (Doc. 31-1) and Brunson’s June 22 body-camera videos (Docs. 31-2 and 31-3) in its

determination of Defendants’ motion.6

V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On June 16, 2021, the Elba Police Department received calls from citizens

expressing concern for Edgar’s welfare because he was seen walking unsteadily on the

4 Defendants note that the report also records Edgar’s staggering in the road when law enforcement arrived,

which corresponds with the Amended Complaint’s allegations that Edgar was “in the street” at that time.

5 Edgar does not challenge the police report as containing false information. Additionally, Edgar uses the

police report in his argument in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 36 at 27.

6 Edgar also challenges the declaration of Officer Brunson, which is attached to the Motion to Dismiss. The

declaration, however, simply affirms the authenticity of the body-camera exhibits and the police report.

The authenticity of these exhibits is not disputed; thus, the Court need not consider the declaration, and the

challenge to it is moot.

street. Doc. 26 ¶¶ 13–14. In response, Brunson drove to Edgar, who was sitting on the

corner of Court Avenue and Buford Street. Id. ¶ 13. Edgar explained to Brunson that he

had a neurological disease called ataxia and had three missing toes, which “made it difficult

for him to walk normally.” Id. at ¶¶ 17–18. Brunson assisted Edgar by driving him to his

destination. Id. at ¶ 18.

Six days later on June 22, Defendants Brunson, Spence, Tew, and accompanying

Elba police officers and medics responded to a call for assistance on Cedar Lane, where

they found Edgar in the street wrapped in a blanket. Id. at ¶¶ 19–22. Edgar alleges he told

the officers he “needed help because he was extremely sick,” “thought he had COVID-19,”

and “wanted to go to the hospital.” Id. at ¶¶ 23–24. He further alleges that he changed his

mind and wanted to go home instead, but Defendants informed him he did not have a choice

and had to go to the hospital. Id. at ¶¶ 24–26. Edgar told Defendants “many times

throughout the encounter” that he had ataxia and that it “negatively affected his balance

and ability to speak clearly.” Id. ¶ 28. Edgar contends Brunson was aware of his disease

and its effects because of their June 16 interaction. Id. ¶ 31.

At the beginning of their encounter, as shown on Brunson’s first June 22 video,7

Brunson tells Edgar to “come here.” Ex. 2 at 00:00–05.8 Edgar refuses, utters some

7 A Rule 12(b)(6) motion generally requires a court to review the facts alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. However, when video evidence is properly before a court

pursuant to the incorporation-by-reference doctrine and contradicts some or all of the factual allegations

from the complaint, the court may consider the video at the motion to dismiss stage. See Quinette, 805 F.

App’x at 703 (holding under incorporation-by-reference doctrine court may consider video footage of jail

cell that captured altercation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint and that “the video overrides the complaint”).

8 The videos filed in support of Defendant’s motion were conventionally filed with the Clerk of the Court.

The first video from June 22 is filed as Exhibit 2 to Doc. 31, and the second video from June 22 is filed as

incoherent statements, and walks away. Id. at 00:00–00:09. Brunson then tells Edgar to sit

on a nearby front porch where residents of the home were standing just outside their

adjacent front door. Doc. 26 ¶ 34; Ex. 2 at 00:09–00:10. At first Edgar refuses. Id. at 00:10–

00:16. Brunson asks Edgar again if he will go over to the resident’s house and tells Edgar

to let them take him to the hospital to make sure he is not sick. Edgar eventually complies

by sitting on the steps of the front porch while speaking incoherently to the residents. Id.

at 00:16–00:37.

As Edgar sits on the porch steps, Brunson gives Edgar three options: he can go to

the hospital, go home, or go to jail. Id. at 00:37–00:51. Brunson informs Edgar that he

cannot stay on the residents’ porch because they do not want him there, he is not allowed

to keep wandering around the streets, and he must decide where he wants to go. Id. at

00:51–01:00. In the Amended Complaint, Edgar claims he was “completely lucid” and

speaking normally during this exchange and that the residents of the porch had not

indicated he was unwelcome on their property. Doc. 26 ¶¶ 35–38. The video, however,

contradicts this. It shows Edgar speaking incoherently. Ex. 2 at 00:00–01:00. After

Brunson instructed Edgar that he could not remain on the porch and that one of his options

was to go to jail, one of the residents said, “He can go his [expletive] to jail.” Id. at 01:00–

01:04. There is no suggestion from the residents that he is welcome to remain on the porch.

Edgar goes on to plead that, in the next sequence of events, he stands up from the

porch, leaves that property, walks through another resident’s yard, falls toward another

Exhibit 3 to Doc. 31. In citing to the videos in this Order, the Court will refer to them as Exhibit 2 (the first

video) and Exhibit 3 (the second video).

house, walks through a second yard, continues across a dirt road, and eventually falls in

the grass yard on the side of the road where he remains. Doc. 26 ¶¶ 39–47. The video

depicts Edgar walking through the neighborhood over residential property, stumbling,

tripping, falling on the ground, slurring his words, acting erratically, and generally not

complying with the officer’s directives. Ex. 2 at 01:00–2:41. The video shows Brunson

continually attempting to convince Edgar to go to the hospital, a fact Edgar includes in the

Amended Complaint.9 Doc. 36 ¶ 58. After Edgar falls on the side of the road, he tells

Brunson he was “raised with” a disease (ataxia). Ex. 2 at 02:41–02:56. Brunson reassures

Edgar that the officers were not going to hurt him. Id. at 02:56–02:58. Edgar, who is

panting, claims he is going to have a heart attack. Id. at 02:58–03:00. Brunson radios a

request that the ambulance reposition to the area where Edgar is sitting and tells Edgar he

must go to the hospital. Id. at 03:01–03:15. Brunson hypothesizes Edgar may be having a

panic attack and urges Edgar to let the medics do their job. Id. at 03:20–03:26.

The remainder of the video captures similar interactions. Edgar continues refusing

help and uttering incoherent statements. Brunson continues urging him to allow the medics

to examine him while also reassuring him that no one will hurt him. When Edgar again

replies “no,” Brunson tells him he is delirious. Edgar continues his incoherent statements,

9 Edgar’s Amended Complaint contains contradicting allegations about his need for medical care. He says

he initially told officers he needed to go to the hospital but changed his mind and wanted to go home. Doc.

26 ¶¶ 24, 25, 131. He claims the officers then told him he had to go to the hospital (id. ¶ 32) and that

Brunson continued trying to convince him to go (id. ¶ 58). He admits he refused to go to the hospital (id. ¶

119); however, he alleges Defendants “failed to provide him with any medical treatment whatsoever” (id.

¶¶ 140, 145) and were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety (id. ¶ 144).

and Brunson again informs him that he must go to the hospital because he is delirious and

possibly having a panic attack. Id. at 05:10–05:40.

Brunson then offers Edgar the choice of going home or to the hospital. Id. at 05:47–

06:02. Edgar continues to respond with indiscernible statements, including something

about his mother. Id. at 06:22–06:05. Brunson suggests Edgar call his mother from the

hospital, but Edgar persists in his refusal to go. Id. at 06:17–06:20. When Brunson again

tells Edgar that he cannot stay where he is, Edgar says he is going home to Kinston. Id. at

06:20–06:29. Brunson advises Edgar he cannot walk to Kinston in his condition. Id. at

06:29–06:34. Eventually, Edgar demands Brunson take him home. Id. at 07:28–07:35.

Brunson explains that he cannot drive Edgar to Kinston but offers to take him to his sister’s

house nearby. Id. at 07:36–7:50. Edgar engages further in a mostly incomprehensible

discussion with Brunson and then yells and throws his blanket over his head. Id. at 10:01–

10:27.

While Edgar remains seated on the grass, another officer approaches him, tells him

to stand up, and attempts to help him up. Id. at 10:28–10:40; Doc. 26 ¶ 59.10 Brunson tries

to put Edgar’s hands behind his back, causing Edgar to fall forward. Id. ¶¶ 59–63. When

Edgar tries to walk away, and an officer grabs him and brings him to the ground while a

third officer joins in holding him down. Ex. 2 at 10:44–10:51. Three officers surround

Edgar11 and attempt to hold him still to handcuff him. Id. One officer yells to another officer

10 Edgar acknowledges that Officer Spence is the individual who orders Edgar to stand up. See Doc. 36 at

29; see also Doc. 31 at 15–16.

11 There appears to be no dispute or contrary allegation in the Amended Complaint that the three officers

are Brunson, Tew, and Spence.

to deploy his taser, and Edgar is tased at least four times. Doc. 26 ¶¶ 66–67. During the

administration of the taser, the officers tell him to stop resisting and to put his hands behind

his back, but Edgar continues to move around, crawl away, and refuse to put his right hand

behind his back to be handcuffed. Ex. 2 at 10:51–12:31. Edgar is placed in a police car and

taken to jail. Doc. 26 ¶ 77.

During the events surrounding his arrest, Edgar suffers a contusion to his nose,

which was noted on the police report. Id. ¶ 79; Doc. 31-1 at 4. Although the precise timing

is unclear from the allegations of the Amended Complaint, also at some point—whether as

he stumbled and fell while walking through the residential area, during his encounters with

the arresting officers, transporting officers, or jail staff, or while in the jail waiting for his

release—Edgar fractures his ankle. Doc. 26 ¶¶ 82, 104.

Edgar asserts in the Amended Complaint that he asked for medical aid while being

transported to the jail but was denied. Id. ¶ 83. On his third day in jail, a nurse saw him,

gave him ibuprofen, and told him he would be fine in a day. Id. ¶¶ 98–99. Edgar was

released on his fifth day of confinement in jail. Id. at ¶ 101. He went to the emergency

room and was diagnosed with an ankle fracture. Id. at ¶ 104.

VI. DISCUSSION

Defendants moved to dismiss the entirety of Edgar’s Amended Complaint for failure

to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Because the Court concludes Edgar cannot proceed

against the fictitious parties, those claims must be dismissed. Edgar’s federal causes of

action against the named Defendants fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

Therefore, those claims cannot survive Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and the Court

declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state claims.

A. Fictitious Parties

In addition to his claims against the named Defendants, Edgar asserts the deliberate

indifference § 1983 claim (Count IV) against fictitious parties Does 1–3 and three state-

law claims, negligent correctional care (Count V), medical negligence (Count VI), and

wantonness (Count VII), against multiple fictitious defendants. Edgar’s state-law claims

against the fictitious parties are not clear. Count V is titled “42 U.S.C. § 1983 NEGLIGENT

CORRECTIONAL CARE-AGAINST DOES 4 AND 5.” While it is labeled as a § 1983

claim, the label appears to be a scrivener’s error, as Edgar pleads this claim as a “cause of

action . . . asserted against Does 4-6[] pursuant to the Alabama common law tort of

negligence as modified by statutes of the Alabama Legislature.” He asserts noncompliance

with Alabama Code §§ 14-6-1 and 14-6-19 as the basis for the alleged negligent care. Doc.

26 ¶¶ 151–160. Additionally, while the count is titled against Does 4 and 5, and he pleads

it against Does 4–6. Edgar also includes allegations that Does 1–3 “negligently, carelessly,

and/or unskillfully assessed Edgar.” Id. ¶ 158. For this state-law claim, he seeks judgment

for this state-law claim only against Does 4–5. Id. at 18–19.

Count VI is similarly lacking clarity. It is titled “MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE –

AGAINST DOE 4 AND 5,” and the allegations under the title relate to the fictitious parties

identified as Does 4 and 5; however, Edgar adds other conclusory allegations within this

count regarding Does 6 and 7. Id. at 19–20. He also includes a legal conclusion that “[e]ach

of the foregoing acts and patterns of negligence on the part of Defendant Doe 4, operating

separately or in combination with other Defendants jointly and cumulatively, proximately

contributed to cause Edgar’s injuries and damages.” Doc. 26 ¶ 171. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (stating “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the

allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions”). The absence of

clarity in the fictitious party claims notwithstanding, the claims cannot proceed here.

Generally, “fictitious-party pleading is not permitted in federal court.” Richardson

v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 738 (11th Cir. 2010). The Eleventh Circuit “has never permitted

John Doe pleading solely on the ground that discovery might reveal an unnamed

defendant’s identity. Instead, our precedent has always required an unambiguous

description of a defendant that enables service of process.” Vielma v. Gruler, 808 F. App’x

872, 880 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1215–16 & n.6 (11th Cir.

1992)). “[T]he highly generic (e.g., ‘a male detective,’ ‘one of the officers at the hospital,’

or ‘an FBI Agent’) to the ever-so-slightly less generic (e.g., ‘[a] female white officer about

5 feet 10–11 inches in height’ or ‘a middle-aged white male [officer]’)” are insufficient

descriptions because they “fail[ ] to describe the [Doe] defendants with enough specificity

to enable service of process.” Id.; see also Beaty v. Dunn, No. 2:20-CV-279-ECM, 2022

WL 1721249, at *5 (M.D. Ala. May 27, 2022) (“In this case, Beaty has identified categories

of unknown officers, and has pleaded that they were on duty. This identification does not

rise to the level of specificity identified by the Eleventh Circuit.”); Daniel v. Howell, No.

2:20-CV-145-WKW, 2020 WL 7029152, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 30, 2020) (dismissing the

fictitious party claims and holding that plaintiffs’ labels of fictitious defendants as “officers

1, 2, and 3” were ambiguous and lacked necessary specificity to qualify under the limited

exception outlined in Dean, 951 F.2d 1210).

The Eleventh Circuit has recognized a narrow exception permitting fictitious

pleading and allowing discovery where

the plaintiff’s description of the fictitious defendant [is] specific enough to

be considered surplusage, at the minimum. Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210,

1215–16 (11th Cir. 1992). The exception is meant to encompass instances

when, for “one reason or another, the plaintiff is unwilling or unable to use a

party’s real name.” Taylor v. Brooks, 2020 WL 3129862 (N.D. Ala. 2020)

(quoting Dean, 951 F.2d [at] 1215).

Huffman v. Dunn, No. 4:20-CV-1293-CLM, 2021 WL 2533024, at *9 (N.D. Ala. June 21,

2021). Judge Maze succinctly summarized the exception this way: “The cases discussing

the exception seem to turn on whether the description of the fictitious defendant (a) allows

the reader to point to a specific individual or (b) leaves the reader wondering which

person(s) out of a group fits the bill. The former is allowed; the latter is not.” Id. (comparing

Dean, 951 F.2d at 1215 (holding that plaintiff’s pleading of “Chief Deputy of the Jefferson

County Jail John Doe” was sufficient because it pointed to knowable, singular defendant)

with Richardson, 598 F.3d at 738 (holding that plaintiff’s identification of defendant as

“John Doe (Unknown Legal Name), Guard, Charlotte Correctional Institute” was

insufficient in identifying defendant “among the many guards employed [there]”)). Thus,

where a plaintiff’s descriptions leave the reader “unable to identify the particular individual

described,” it will fall outside the narrow exception for fictitious party pleading. Huffman,

2021 WL 2533024, at *9 (holding insufficient to fall within the exception plaintiff’s

descriptions of two groups: “each of the Defendants Unknown Shift Commanders, was a

shift commander on duty in the L/M and P/Q Blacks at the St. Clair Prison on the date of

Mr. Pettiway’s murder on September 2, 2018” and “Defendants Unknown Correctional

Officers were correctional officers at the St. Clair Prison at the time of the events at issue

[and] were responsible for supervision and monitoring Pettiway’s housing unit and the

areas where these events took place”). While not binding precedent on this Court, the

summary of the Eleventh Circuit’s exception to the general prohibition is instructive, and

this Court agrees with it.

Before amending his Complaint, Edgar, who is represented by counsel, had the

opportunity to investigate the identity of the fictitious parties, including review of

Defendants’ body-camera footage. Nonetheless, the Amended Complaint fails to remedy

the vague descriptions of these parties.

For example, Edgar describes Does 1–3 as “officers with the Coffee County

Sheriff’s Office, who assisted with the transfer of Edgar from Officer Brunson’s patrol car

into the Coffee County Jail.” Doc. 26 at ¶ 8. He states that these unnamed officers “had

direct interaction with Edgar as he arrived” at the Coffee County Jail, but he omits any

description of the alleged “direct interaction” that might help narrow the scope of the

individuals he targets. At some unspecified time over the course of his five-day stay in jail,

Edgar “complained about his injuries at the jail to Does 1–3.” Id at ¶¶ 8, 92. He “constantly

asked Does 1–3 when the nurse” would arrive to treat him. Id. at ¶ 95. Edgar was seen by

a nurse on day three, but it is unclear if he interacted with these same officers as he was

moved inside the jail or in the days before he saw the nurse. Because he does not further

articulate the nature of his interaction or when it occurred, there is no basis to narrow the

group of officers who may have encountered Edgar while he was confined. The Amended

Complaint leaves the reader wondering which persons out of a group Edgar intends to

name.

Within Edgar’s opposition to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 36 at 24), he requests

leave to conduct limited discovery. His proposed discovery highlights the generalized and

insufficiently specific allegations. He seeks to identify “all officers with the Coffee County

Sherriff’s Office[] who assisted with the transfer of [Edgar] from Officer Brunson’s patrol

car into the Coffee County Jail, who were working on June 21, 2021,12 and had direct

interaction with Edgar as he arrived at the Coffee County Jail.”13 Id. Edgar’s descriptions

leave uncertain which officers he intends to include in his Amended Complaint or what

“direct interaction” is at issue. It further leaves uncertain the question of whether this group

of officers interacted with him at all during the course of his confinement or only “as he

arrived” at the jail.14 Without sufficient details to identify the individual parties or to

properly serve them, these fictitious parties are due to be dismissed, and discovery, even if

made properly by a motion, would not be appropriate.

12 Edgar’s arrest occurred on June 22, 2021.

13 For each officer identified, Edgar also seeks to request by interrogatory the individual’s job title and the

“reason for their interaction” with Edgar. Doc. 26 at 24. If Edgar is uncertain of the reason for the interaction

and cannot describe it, it is difficult to discern how it could form the basis of a claim against the fictitious

party.

14 The vague assertions also suggest that, even if Edgar were able to identify these fictitious parties, he

would have difficulty articulating sufficient factual allegations to state a claim against them. See

McDermont v. Brevard County Sheriff’s Office, No. 6:07-CV-150-ORL-31KR, 2007 WL 948430, at *3

(M.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2007) (quoting Gillespie v Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980) (stating that

“plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it

is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other

grounds”)).

Edgar’s pleading provides slightly more specificity with respect to Doe 4, whom he

describes as a nurse, “a female medical provider assigned to work in the Coffee County

Jail” with “dark hair” who, “at all material times,” was “wearing blue scrubs and a gray

sweater.” Id. ¶¶ 9, 155. Edgar alleges that Doe 4 “encountered Edgar in the jail” at some

unidentified time when “he had a contusion and difficulty walking.” Id. ¶ 93. Edgar alleges

“she made no effort to treat Edgar’s obvious injuries” or “respond to the requests for

medical treatment . . . other than ibuprofen.” Id. ¶ 93–94 According to Edgar, Doe 4 did

not see him until his third day in jail. Id. ¶ 155. It is not entirely clear if the day three

encounter with Doe 4 is the same encounter described in Paragraph 93 above. Edgar was

in jail a total of five days. Id. ¶ 157.

The pleading ambiguity as to Doe 4 is exacerbated by Edgar’s description of Doe 5.

At the beginning of the Amended Complaint, Quality Correctional Health Care (QCHC) is

identified as “the company providing medical care for inmates at the Coffee County Jail

and [that] employs Doe 4.” Doc. 26 ¶ 10. QCHC is not identified by name in any other part

of the Amended Complaint—there are no other factual allegations about QCHC and not a

single count asserts a claim against QCHC. Near the end of the Complaint, Doe 5 is

described as “Doe 4’s employer.” Id. ¶ 164. Thus, it is unclear whether Doe 5 is QCHC or

if Doe 5 is a different entity whose identity is unknown. This confusion in describing the

entity, in conjunction with the lacking clarity of his “encounter[s]” with Doe 4 leaves in

question key details that might enable identification of and service upon these parties.

As with the unknown officers, Edgar requests leave to serve discovery regarding

Doe 4 within the body of his opposition brief; however, the embedded discovery request

again underscores the confusion regarding the allegations against Doe 4, and the requests

reveal that a group of providers, not a singular nurse, may be at issue. In the proposed

discovery, Edgar seeks to identify “all female medical providers assigned to work in the

Coffee County Jail[] who had direct contact with [Edgar] on June 21, 2021 or who are

pictured in the attached photo.”15 Doc. 36 at 24 (emphasis added). The uncertainty about

the fictitious party nurse or medical providers’ identity is compounded because Edgar’s

proposed request seeks names of those who encountered him on June 21, 2021. According

to the Amended Complaint’s allegations, the arrest occurred on June 22, 2021, and Edgar

did not see Doe 4 until his third day in jail, which would have been June 24, 2021. The

connection between this fictitious party, Edgar, and June 21 is clear as mud. Even if the

Doe 4 nurse and her employer could be identified through discovery, as described below,

the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Thus,

the Court should not allow fictitious party discovery to prolong this litigation where all

federal claims are dismissed.

Finally, the Court must reach the same conclusion for Does 6 and 7. The pleading

with respect to these parties is replete with ambiguity. Edgar pleads that the state-law

negligent correctional care claim in Count V is “asserted against Does 4–6.” Doc. 26 ¶ 151.

However, Doe 6 is never mentioned in a single factual allegation of the pleading. The only

other reference to Doe 6 is in a legal conclusion stating, “Does 6 and 7 negligently breached

[a] duty by: (a) failing to timely diagnose and treat Edgar’s medical condition; (b) ordering

15Edgar provides no explanation for how the referenced photo may narrow the scope or identity of the

fictitious party, and it is not mentioned in the Amended Complaint.

insufficient medical care for Edgar; (c) ordering inappropriate medical treatment for Edgar;

and (d) failing to timely and appropriately have Edgar tested, diagnosed, and treated, at a

hospital or other appropriate facility.” Id. ¶ 167. This legal conclusion is also the only

mention of Doe 7. Thus, Does 6 and 7 are included in the Amended Complaint with no

factual description whatsoever. Id. ¶¶ 151, 167.

Given this, the Amended Complaint does not sufficiently identify the fictitious

parties, and Edgar improperly requests discovery within his brief in opposition to the

Motion to Dismiss.16 Without question, Edgar’s fictitious party pleading violates the

Eleventh Circuit’s general rule prohibiting this practice in federal court. The parties he

describes could be any number of officers or medical providers on duty over the course of

several days who may have interacted with Edgar to some degree, were involved in some

nondescript part of his transfer to the Coffee County Jail, or were present at some point in

or outside the Coffee County Jail “as he arrived” or after his confinement began.

Edgar’s fictitious party pleading falls outside of the narrow exception described

above because a singular defendant cannot be identified by any of Plaintiff’s category

descriptions in the Amended Complaint. Edgar has described an inconspicuous group of

officers, medical providers, and employer. See Moulds v. Bullard, 345 F. App’x 387, 390

(11th Cir. 2009) (affirming district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s fictitious party pleadings

because plaintiff failed to describe John Doe defendants in amended complaint completely

or with general descriptions and without timely requests “that would have allowed him to

16 In any event, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims given dismissal of the

federal law claims discussed infra.

learn their names and serve process on them”); Bozeman v. Cnty. of Elmore, No. 2:20-CV-

640-ECM, 2021 WL 2954004, at *3 (M.D. Ala. July 14, 2021) (dismissing plaintiff’s

fictitious party claims and holding that plaintiff’s identification of fictitious defendants as

‘“whether singular or plural, those employees of Elmore County Jail who were on duty on

the occasion made the basis of this suit’” failed to “rise to the level of specificity identified

by the Eleventh Circuit”). Because Edgar has not met his burden of describing the Doe

defendants with sufficient specificity, even after the opportunity to amend, the fictitious

parties are DISMISSED without prejudice.

B. Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity offers complete protection from civil damages for government

officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate “clearly

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

known.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S.

800, 818 (1982)). The Eleventh Circuit has established a two-step analysis to determine

whether qualified immunity applies. See Zeigler v. Jackson, 716 F.2d 847, 849 (11th Cir.

1983) (citations omitted). First, the defendant government official must show he was acting

within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.

Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1194 (11th Cir. 2002). The burden then shifts to the plaintiff

to demonstrate (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right (2) that is clearly

established. Zeigler, 716 F.2d at 849; Crosby v. Monroe Cnty., 394 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th

Cir. 2004). “The test is conjunctive, and if a plaintiff fails either prong of the qualified

immunity analysis, his claim is barred.” Edger v. McCabe, 84 F.4th 1230, 1235 (11th Cir.

2023). If a plaintiff cannot establish both elements, the defendant is entitled to qualified

immunity, and the court may analyze the elements “in whatever order is deemed most

appropriate for the case.” Rehberg v. Paulk, 611 F.3d 828, 839 (11th Cir. 2010), aff’d, 566

U.S. 356 (2012) (citing Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 241–42 (2009)).

1. Scope of Defendants’ Discretionary Authority

As outlined above, for a qualified immunity defense to apply, a defendant must first

establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority. Melton v.

Abston, 841 F.3d 1207, 1221 (11th Cir. 2016). This inquiry requires a high-level, general

evaluation of “whether the government employee was (a) performing a legitimate job-

related function (that is, pursuing a job-related goal), (b) through means that were within

his power to utilize.” Hughes v. Locure, No. 3:22-CV-312-RAH, 2023 WL 2457367, at *6

(M.D. Ala. Mar. 10, 2023) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Courts making this

determination disregard the alleged unlawful act and instead consider “whether the act

complained of, if done for a proper purpose, would be within, or reasonably related to, the

outer perimeter of an official’s discretionary duties.” Mikko v. City of Atlanta, Georgia,

857 F.3d 1136, 1144 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The parties agree that Defendants Brunson, Spence, and Tew were acting as police

“officer[s] with the Elba Police Department and [were] acting under the color of law,”

(Docs. 26 ¶¶ 5–7; 31 at 35–36), but Edgar argues that Defendants went beyond the scope

of their authority because they arrested him without probable cause. However, arrest duties

fall squarely within an officer’s discretionary authority. “A police officer generally acts

within the scope of his discretionary authority when making an arrest.” McDowell v.

Gonzalez, 820 F. App’x 989, 991 (11th Cir. 2020). Thus, by arguing Defendants “went

beyond their discretionary authority” because they lacked probable cause, Edgar

improperly characterizes the legal standard for establishing whether a governmental

official can make this discretionary function showing. Because it is undisputed that

Defendants were acting as police officers when they arrested Edgar, they have

demonstrated that they acted within the scope of their discretionary authority with respect

to the alleged conduct. Accordingly, the burden shifts to Edgar to establish they are not

entitled to qualified immunity by demonstrating they violated a clearly established

constitutional right.

2. Alleged Constitutional Violations

a. Fourth Amendment False Arrest Claim

One of Edgar’s alleged constitutional violations is a Fourth Amendment unlawful

arrest claim. He argues Defendants lacked probable cause to arrest him because he had

committed no crimes at the time of his arrest. Doc. 26 ¶¶ 128–132. Defendants contend

they had actual, or at least arguable, probable cause to arrest Edgar because they reasonably

believed based on their observations that Edgar committed at least eight crimes.17 Doc. 31

at 46.

17 Officers Brunson, Spence, and Tew assert that probable cause existed to arrest Edgar for “(1) pedestrian

on a roadway, (2) failure to obey a police officer, (3) public intoxication, (4) pedestrian under the influence,

(5) criminal trespass in the third degree, (6) disorderly conduct—unreasonable noise, (7) disorderly

conduct—fighting or tumultuous behavior, and (8) resisting arrest.” Doc. 31 at 46. In fact, Defendant

Brunson states several times on video that one of the reasons for Edgar’s arrest is public intoxication. Ex.

3 at 0:57–1:05, 7:26–7:42, 7:51–8:00, and 17:27–17:47. Additionally, although not material to the Court’s

determination, this video evidence conflicts with Plaintiff’s allegation that he was arrested because he

would not go to the hospital.

To determine whether probable cause existed for an arrest or whether qualified

immunity prevents liability for a false arrest claim, courts apply the Wesby test. See Garcia

v. Casey, 75 F.4th 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2023). Under Wesby, to “determine whether an

officer had probable cause for an arrest, we examine the events leading up to the arrest,

and then decide whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively

reasonable police officer, amount to probable cause.” D.C. v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 51

(2018) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

“An officer violates a person’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable

seizures if the officer arrests that person without probable cause to make the arrest.”

Garcia, 75 F.4th at 1186. “Probable cause to arrest exists when the totality of the facts and

circumstances support[s] a reasonable belief that the suspect had committed or was

committing a crime.” United States v. Lindsey, 482 F.3d 1285, 1291 (11th Cir. 2007)

(internal quotation omitted). “An officer need not have actual probable cause, but only

arguable probable cause.” Garcia, 75 F.4th at 1179 (citation and internal quotation

omitted). An officer has arguable probable cause when “a reasonable officer, looking at the

entire legal landscape at the time of the arrests, could have interpreted the law as permitting

the arrests here.” Id. at 1184 (citing Wesby, 583 U.S. at 50).

As mentioned above, Defendants assert a reasonable officer in their position would

have believed probable cause existed to arrest Edgar for eight different crimes. Although

Edgar bears the burden of showing Defendants lacked arguable probable cause to arrest

him, instead of addressing each ground, he pivots and offers a proposed explanation for the

arrest: his refusal to go to the hospital. Doc. 36 at 27 n.2. This argument fails to negate

probable cause for the arrest.18

One of the crimes Defendants point to is public intoxication. Edgar claims the

officers knew or should have known he was not intoxicated because he told them he had

ataxia, which “affected his ability to walk and speak,” and “was extremely sick and needed

to go to the hospital . . . .” Doc. 26 ¶ 31. However, under Alabama law, “[a] person commits

the crime of public intoxication if he appears in a public place under the influence of

alcohol, narcotics or other drug to the degree that he endangers himself or another person

or property, or by boisterous and offensive conduct annoys another person in his vicinity.”

Ala. Code § 13A-11-10(a) (1975). Here, Defendants collectively had sufficient facts to

establish actual probable cause for public intoxication. According to Edgar’s alleged facts,

which are credited at this stage, Defendants responded to a call for assistance from a

resident of Cedar Lane Drive who reported seeing Edgar walking unsteadily on the street,

and, upon arrival, observed Edgar in the street wrapped in a blanket. Doc. 26 ¶¶ 19–22.

And the video depicts Edgar stumbling, falling over, speaking in an incoherent manner

while entering three separate private properties, and shouting some indiscernible words and

throwing his blanket over his head upon his final fall before the officers attempted to

handcuff him.

18 The argument also contradicts other allegations Edgar has made. Indeed, he alleges that he asked the

officers to take him to the hospital several times before his arrest, but the video depicts Edgar refusing to

go in the ambulance during the entire encounter leading up to his arrest.

Edgar admits ataxia “causes difficulty with walking, balancing, hand coordination

and speech that looks similar to intoxication.” Doc. 26 ¶ 30. Thus, when Defendants

observed Edgar engaging in this conduct, such as falling over and slurring his words, it

could reasonably look like intoxication.19 Even if Edgar only appeared intoxicated because

of his ataxia, Defendants had probable cause to arrest him. Officers are not required to “to

rule out a suspect’s innocent explanation for suspicious facts” like a sickness or disease.20

Garcia, 75 F.4th at 1190 (quoting Wesby, 583 U.S. at 61). “It is not unusual to find at the

scene of a crime evidence pointing in different directions, but a law enforcement officer is

not required to resolve every inconsistency found in the evidence.” Davis v. City of Apopka,

78 F.4th 1326, 1335 (11th Cir. 2023) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Defendants

reasonably could have believed Edgar was committing the crime of public intoxication

because “he appear[ed] in a public place under the influence . . . to the degree [of] []

endanger[ing] himself” when he was unable to stand up without falling over near the street.

Ala. Code § 13A-11-10(a) (1975). Accordingly, Defendants Brunson, Spence, and Tew

had probable cause to arrest Edgar for public intoxication, which is sufficient to defeat

Edgar’s false arrest claim.

19 Indeed, Edgar quotes one of the arresting officers who testified at his criminal trial stating that “he ‘knew

what meth-heads looked like’ in referring to why he thought Edgar was intoxicated.” Doc. 26 ¶ 105.

20 Edgar also argues that Brunson acknowledged he had no probable because he is heard on the body-camera

video reporting that “‘[Edgar] resisted transport, ambulance was on site, refused transport twice, became

aggressive so now he’s here.’” Doc. 36 at 28. For the same reasons noted above, Brunson’s statement does

not rule out that a reasonable officer would have believed probable cause existed to arrest Edgar for public

intoxication. First, it is an objective analysis—a reasonable officer is the measure. A particular officer’s

subjective knowledge does not carry the analysis. Second, Brunson’s belief that Edgar should have gone to

the hospital does not negate probable cause for an arrest on public intoxication. This statement, like Edgar’s

ataxia, does not rule out a reasonable basis based on the circumstances that there was probable cause for a

public intoxication arrest.

Because the Court concludes that Defendants Brunson, Spence, and Tew had

probable cause to arrest Edgar for at least one unlawful act, Defendants did not violate

Edgar’s Fourth Amendment rights, and the Court need not address whether the right is

clearly established. Thus, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and Edgar’s false

arrest claim is DISMISSED with prejudice.

b. Excessive Force Claim

Although Edgar asserts an excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

Brunson, Spencer, and Tew (Doc. 26 ¶¶ 108–123), he fails to make clear whether the claim

is based on a violation of his Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights. The claim is titled,

“42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Excessive Force Against Brunson, Spence, and Tew – Fourth

Amendment,” but the allegations within Count I confusingly assert that the alleged acts

violated Edgar’s equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Fourth

Amendment. Doc. 26 at ¶ 122. Defendants argue this claim is, therefore, an equal

protection claim, and, because Edgar fails to allege the officers acted with a discriminatory

purpose, it fails to articulate a constitutional violation, thereby entitling Defendants to

qualified immunity.

Edgar’s excessive force claim cannot move forward for two reasons. First, Edgar

fails to respond specifically to Defendants’ arguments in favor of dismissing the excessive

force claim as asserted under the equal protection clause. “Courts in the Eleventh Circuit

and beyond have held that the failure of a party to respond or oppose a pending motion

may constitute an abandonment of the claims at issue in that motion.” Kirkland v. Cnty.

Comm’n of Elmore Cnty., Alabama, No. 2:08-CV-86-MEF, 2009 WL 596538, at *2 (M.D.

Ala. Mar. 6, 2009); see Coal. for the Abolition of Marijuana Prohibition v. City of Atlanta,

219 F.3d 1301, 1326 (11th Cir. 2000) (holding “appellants’ failure to brief and argue this

issue during the proceedings before the district court is grounds for finding that the issue

has been abandoned”). Edgar has asserted no basis for an equal protection claim, and his

failure to address Defendants’ arguments is an abandonment of the excessive force claim.

Second, even if the claim were not subject to dismissal because it was abandoned,

it could not move forward. Edgar briefly argues in response to the motion to dismiss that

any force used during an arrest lacking probable cause is excessive and violates clearly

established constitutional rights. Doc. 36 at 37–38. Edgar argues the officers could not use

force to make him go to the hospital or any other location (including jail) because they had

no probable cause for an arrest. Defendants correctly point out that Edgar’s argument is

based on the erroneous premise that the arrest was excessive because there was no probable

cause. This is not the law. “When . . . an excessive force claim is predicated solely on

allegations the arresting officer lacked the power to make an arrest, the excessive force

claim is entirely derivative of, and is subsumed within, the unlawful arrest claim.” Khoury

v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 4 F.4th 1118, 1130 (11th Cir. 2021) (citation and internal

quotation omitted). Thus, Edgar’s excessive force claim, even if analyzed under the Fourth

Amendment, is subsumed within his false arrest claim. Because the Court has found there

was probable cause to arrest Edgar and dismisses the false arrest claim, the excessive force

claim based on a lack-of-probable-cause argument must also be dismissed.21

Accordingly, Edgar’s excessive force claim is DISMISSED with prejudice.

c. Denial-of-Medical-Care Claim

Edgar asserts a denial-of-medical-care claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

Defendants Brunson, Spencer, and Tew.22 Doc. 26 ¶¶ 138–149. “[T]he Fourteenth

Amendment Due Process Clause, not the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and

unusual punishment, governs pretrial detainees like [Edgar].” 23 Goebert v. Lee Cnty., 510

F.3d 1312, 1326 (11th Cir. 2007). The legal standards applicable to a deliberate-

indifference claim “under the Fourteenth Amendment are identical to those under the

Eighth.” Goebert, 510 F.3d at 1326. The Court reviews Edgar’s denial-of-medical-care

claim as a deliberate-indifference claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.

“To show that a [police officer] acted with deliberate indifference to serious medical

needs, a plaintiff must satisfy both an objective and a subjective inquiry.” Farrow v. West,

320 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003). To prove a deliberate-indifference claim, a detainee

must first establish ‘“an objectively serious medical need’—that is, ‘one that has been

diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay

21 In passing, Edgar also argues that “in a case similar to this one [the Eleventh Circuit] held that officers

used excessive force when they repeatedly tased a citizen while there was no immediate danger to the

officer.” Doc. 36 at 30–31 (citing Oliver v. Fiorino, 586 F.3d 898, 906 (11th Cir. 2009). However, he again

focuses this argument on the officers’ giving Edgar the “choices” of going to jail or to the hospital without

a basis for doing so. He fails to develop any excessive force claim independent of the false arrest claim.

22 Edgar also asserts this claim against Does 1–3, which were dismissed above.

23 Edgar argues this claim under the Fourteenth Amendment in his brief. See Doc. 36 at 38.

person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention’—that, ‘if left

unattended, poses a substantial risk of serious harm.’” Keohane v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr.

Sec’y, 952 F.3d 1257, 1266 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344,

1351 (11th Cir. 2004)). “For example, we have concluded that a freely bleeding cut that

created a pool of blood on the ground and required stitches presented a serious medical

need.” Hinson v. Bias, 927 F.3d 1103, 1122 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Aldridge v.

Montgomery, 753 F.2d 970, 972–73 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam)). The Eleventh Circuit

has “also found broken bones to constitute a serious medical need.” Id. (citing Brown v.

Hughes, 894 F.2d 1533, 1538–39 (11th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)). “And depending on the

circumstances, severe pain that is not promptly or adequately treated can present a serious

medical need.” Id. (citing Hinson, 927 F.3d at 1122). After establishing the objective

component, a plaintiff must then establish the subjective component by showing: “(1)

subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) disregard of that risk; (3) by conduct

that is more than [gross] negligence.” Goebert, 510 F.3d at 1327 (citation omitted).24

Edgar claims that Defendants Brunson, Spence, and Tew knew he had serious

medical needs, including that he was tased four times, was “extremely sick,” suffered a

contusion, and had an injury to his ankle or foot. Doc. 26 ¶¶ 104, 139–140. He further

24 There is uncertainty in the Eleventh Circuit whether the standard is “more than mere negligence” or

“more than gross negligence.” Johnson v. Lewis, 83 F.4th 1319 n.2 (11th Cir. 2023) (comparing McElligott

v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248, 1255 (11th Cir. 1999), with Townsend v. Jefferson Cnty., 601 F.3d 1152, 1158

(11th Cir. 2010)); see Brooks v. Miller, 78 F.4th 1267, 1284 (11th Cir. 2023) (“As of the time we issue this

opinion, arguably, some uncertainty exists in our precedent as to whether the standard is ‘more than mere

negligence’ or ‘more than gross negligence.’”). As discussed below, Edgar’s claim fails under the first parts

of the applicable test; therefore, the Court need not consider whether “the officer[s]’conduct amounted to

more than negligence of a specified degree.” Brooks, 78 F.4th at 1284.

asserts that, despite Defendants’ awareness of these serious medical needs, they failed to

provide him medical services or treatment and that their deliberate indifference caused

injury. Id. Defendants contend that Edgar cannot show he suffered any injuries constituting

an objectively serious medical need and that he failed to plausibly demonstrate they knew

a serious risk of harm existed.

i. Tasing Injury and Illness

Edgar fails to establish that being tased four times or being extremely sick qualifies

as a serious medical need. “To proceed on a claim challenging the constitutionality of

medical/mental health care ‘[t]he facts alleged must do more than contend medical

malpractice, misdiagnosis, accidents, [or] poor exercise of medical judgment.’” Gladney

v. Burks, No. 2:18-CV-442-WKW, 2021 WL 3179023, at *7 (M.D. Ala. June 29, 2021),

report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:18-CV-442-WKW, 2021 WL 3177408 (M.D.

Ala. July 27, 2021) (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330–33 (1986)).

First, Edgar asserts no specific injury caused by the tasing or what he believed to be

COVID-19. Even if Edgar did assert an injury from the taser, such as a taser burn, our

precedent “has found that a plaintiff complaining of minor burns and associated scarring

failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference.” Roebling v. City of Tuscaloosa,

Alabama, No. 7:14-CV-151-SGC, 2015 WL 7433147, at *5 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 30, 2015),

report and recommendation adopted, No. 7:14-CV-151-RDP, 2015 WL 7424120 (N.D.

Ala. Nov. 23, 2015) (citing Hayward v. Kile, No. CIV.A CV607-68, 2009 WL 2045925,

at *8 (S.D. Ga. June 12, 2009) (granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment and

finding ulcer caused by taser burn was not an “objectively serious medical need”), report

and recommendation adopted, 2009 WL 2045923 (S.D. Ga. July 13, 2009)). Thus, the fact

that Edgar was tased does not amount to a serious medical need on the facts the Court must

accept as true. Further, while courts have deemed an illness coupled with severe symptoms

as a serious medical need, Edgar’s conclusory statement that “he was extremely sick” and

“thought he had COVID-19” does not plausibly establish an objectively serious medical

need. For example, in McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248, 1256 (11th Cir. 1999), the court

held that an inmate’s cancer diagnosis constituted a serious medical need and that the

defendants were aware of that need because the plaintiff continuously complained about

severe pain and was visibly deteriorating and losing weight. On the other hand, the court

has found that skin abrasions and bruises (see Hinson, 927 F.3d at 1122) and a temporary

bloody nose and mouth, complaints of pain, and disorientation did not constitute serious

medical needs (see Fernandez v. Metro Dade Police Dep’t, 397 F. App’x 507, 512 (11th

Cir. 2010)). Edgar does not allege that he endured any injury from the taser or that being

sick with COVID-19 caused any symptoms or posed a substantial risk of serious harm.

Second, assuming Edgar could show a serious medical need related to the tasing or

COVID-19 and Defendants’ subjective knowledge of the risk of serious harm, the facts

negate a finding that Defendants disregarded the risk of medical need. Defendants

summoned an ambulance, and Edgar refused medical treatment and transport. Further, as

Edgar concedes, after telling Defendants he was sick and believed he had COVID-19, he

retracted his request to go to the hospital. Doc. 26 ¶¶ 23–25. An officer disregards a risk of

serious harm when he is aware of a serious medical need but refuses or denies medical care

or “turn[s] a blind eye.” Hoffer v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 973 F.3d 1263, 1272 (11th

Cir. 2020). The presence of the ambulance and medics at the scene of Edgar’s arrest,

coupled with his refusal to enter the ambulance and receive medical attention, weigh

against his denial-of-medical-care claim. Additionally, the fact that Defendants

“questioned him repeatedly regarding his desire for treatment demonstrates not deliberate

indifference, but significant concern about his condition.” Taylor v. Adams, 221 F.3d 1254,

1258 (11th Cir. 2000). Thus, Edgar’s denial-of-medical-care claim with respect to his being

tased and his sickness is DISMISSED with prejudice.

ii. Ankle or Foot Injury

Edgar alleges that at some unidentified time “during the encounter” made the

subject of the lawsuit, he suffered an ankle fracture. Doc. 26 ¶ 82. The Amended

Complaint’s allegations regarding the ankle fracture leave it unclear when the injury

occurred, who was aware of it, when they became aware of it, and to whom he complained.

Plaintiff asserts the following about the ankle injury, which must be taken as true on

consideration of the motion to dismiss:

82. Edgar also suffered an ankle fracture during the encounter.

83. Edgar told the officers of his injury and asked for medical

treatment for the injury.

94. Nor did Doe 4, ever respond to the requests for medical

treatment Edgar made, instead allowing him to endure the pain

of his broken ankle and contusion with no treatment for the

injuries other than ibuprofen.

104. After release, Edgar went to the emergency room, where his

injury was finally diagnosed as an ankle fracture.

139. Defendants Brunson, Spence, Tew, and Does 1–3 knew that

Edgar had been tased four times, that he was extremely sick,

and that he had suffered other injuries including a contusion

and an injury to his foot.

143. Once Plaintiff suffered an ankle fracture, his need for medical

care and the Defendants’ knowledge of that need only became

more obvious.

152. Does 1–3, knew about his injuries, specifically including his

ankle fracture, and his need for medical attention.

157. Edgar remained with a fractured ankle in confinement in the

Coffee County Jail for five days.

165. Upon looking at Edgar’s ankle fracture that had been left to

fester for three days, Defendant gave him only ibuprofen and

told him it would be fine in a day.

Doc. 26.

While Edgar alleges his need for care “became more obvious” when he suffered the

ankle injury (id. ¶ 143), he leaves to guesswork when or how the injury actually occurred.

Taking his allegations as true, Edgar alleges his ankle injury occurred sometime on the first

day, but the details—whether it occurred before or during his arrest, during his transport,

as he arrived at the Coffee County Jail, or while confined in the Coffee County Jail the first

day—are conspicuously missing from his amended pleading. See id. ¶ 165 (injury festered

for three days) and ¶ 157 (remained at Coffee County Jail with a fracture for five days).

Edgar alleges he was made to endure the pain of a broken ankle during his confinement,

which was treated with nothing except ibuprofen, and that for two days no nurse tended to

him, leaving his ankle fracture untreated. Doc. 26 ¶¶ 94, 97. The ankle fracture was not

diagnosed until his release when he was seen in an emergency room. Doc. 26 at ¶ 104.

Critically, however, Edgar does not allege that Defendants Brunson, Spence, and

Tew caused or were aware that his ankle was fractured; he alleges only that they were

aware of “an injury to his foot” and a need for medical care at some unidentified point in

time and that he told unidentified “officers”25 of “his injury and asked for medical

treatment.” Id. at ¶¶ 83, 139, 142. In his brief, Edgar ignores the lack of clarity in the

Amended Complaint about the alleged ankle injury and cites back to the now-moot

Complaint to support pleading of this claim. Doc. 36 at 39, 42; see L.S. ex rel. Hernandez

v. Peterson, 982 F.3d 1323, 1328 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting TVPX ARS, Inc. v. Genworth

Life & Annuity Ins. Co., 959 F.3d 1318, 1327 (11th Cir. 2020) (“Because ‘an amended

complaint supersedes the former pleadings,’ the amended complaint controls which

persons are defendants in a lawsuit.”)).

A broken ankle or foot could require serious medical attention. See Brown, 894 F.2d

at 1538–39 (holding that “an unexplained delay of hours in treating a serious injury” like a

broken foot “states a prima facie case of deliberate indifference”). Giving Edgar the benefit

of an assumption that he meets the objective standard of the applicable test by showing an

objectively serious medical need, he still fails to assert a plausible claim against Defendants

Brunson, Spence, and Tew. Their knowledge of “an injury to his foot” (Doc. 26 ¶ 139) and

25 This lack of clarity is further compounded by Edgar’s description of Does 1–3, whom he describes as

“officers” with the County Sheriff’s Office, while Defendants Brunson, Spence, and Tew are identified as

officers with the Elba Police Department. See Doc. 26 ¶¶ 5–8.

that he “needed medical care at the scene of the arrest and at the jail” (id. ¶ 142) is

insufficient to demonstrate more than a mere possibility they were aware of the serious

medical need.

Edgar, too, is uncertain when the injury occurred, making these Defendants’

subsequent knowledge of (and reaction to) the injury little more than conjecture. For

example, Edgar argues “[t]he officers’ assault on Edgar caused him to suffer a contusion

to his nose and an ankle fracture.” Doc. 36 at 9. He then speculates that “[i]t is entirely

possible that Edgar’s fracture occurred during [the] time when his ankle was between the

door and the car frame” while he was being transported. Id. at 40 (emphasis added). On

one hand, Edgar argues he had no trouble walking; on the other hand, he argues he was

“having some trouble walking.” Id. Edgar’s inconsistent arguments highlight the confusion

in what he has pleaded in the Amended Complaint as the basis for his medical-deprivation

claim.

As noted above, to survive the motion to dismiss, Edgar must assert enough facts to

suggest the claim could be established. See Quality Auto Painting Ctr. of Roselle, Inc. v.

State Farm Indem. Co., 917 F.3d 1249, 1260 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)) (allegations must be more than “merely possible”;

only “plausible” claims survive a motion to dismiss). “Determining whether a complaint

states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing

court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citation

omitted). This standard requires “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted

unlawfully.” Id. at 678. Conclusory allegations that are merely “conceivable” and fail to

rise “above the speculative level” are insufficient to meet the plausibility standard.

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570. Edgar’s allegations do not clear the plausibility standard.

He fails to assert factual matter, accepted as true, that these Defendants had subjective

knowledge of a risk of serious harm. Without this, the claim cannot survive the motion to

dismiss.

Furthermore, even if Edgar could plausibly show Brunson, Spence, and Tew had

subjective knowledge of the risk of serious harm, the factual allegations negate the

plausibility that these Defendants disregarded a risk of serious harm at the scene of the

arrest. Based on the allegations of the Amended Complaint, Defendants summoned

medical providers to the scene of the arrest—they did not “disregard” a risk of serious

harm, if it occurred during that encounter. Edgar does not allege that these Elba City police

department Defendants were involved in his medical care (or the lack of it) once he was

booked into the Coffee County Jail, other than a vague allegation that they were “aware

that Edgar needed medical care at the scene of the arrest and at the jail.” Doc. 26 ¶¶ 142

and 83 (“Edgar told the officers of his injury and asked for medical treatment for the

injury.”). With the occurrence of the injury left to speculation, these generalized allegations

are insufficient to show more than a vague possibility that these Defendants were aware of

a risk of serious harm and disregarded that risk.26 For this reason, the claim does not raise

26 Defendants Brunson, Spence, and Tew argue that the body-camera footage contradicts any allegation of

a serious foot injury. They argue the video shows, among other things, Edgar reporting ataxia was his issue

(i.e., not a foot injury) and Edgar walking into the jail bearing weight on both legs. Doc. 39 at 35–40. Edgar

argues the video is inconclusive as to the status of his injury while simultaneously arguing that an ankle

fracture “would be so obvious” but would “not necessarily affect one’s ability to walk.” Doc. 36 at 40–41.

Because the Amended Complaint ambiguously pleads when the injury occurred and Defendants’

a right to relief above the speculative level. At most, Edgar has asserted that he was harmed,

i.e., by suffering an ankle fracture, that some individuals became aware of this harm before

it was diagnosed upon his release, and that he was not treated to his satisfaction in the

interim. This is not enough to carry the burden of showing entitlement to relief. See Iqbal,

556 U.S. at 678 (stating the standard “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it

demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”).

The Court need not reach the question of whether Edgar could establish negligence

or gross negligence under the final part of the subjective part of his claim. The failure to

assert clear factual allegations as to Defendants’ knowledge and disregard fell the claim.

While he need not assert detailed factual allegations for every element of the claim, here,

there are insufficient facts asserted in the Amended Complaint on which a plausible claim

for denial-of-medical-care could be based against these Defendants.

Accordingly, Edgar failed to establish a denial-of-medical-care claim in regard to

his ankle or foot injury, and the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice.

iii. Contusion

Finally, the Court addresses Edgar’s assertion that he suffered a contusion to his

nose at some point during the incident. Doc. 26 ¶ 79. The contusion is visible in the June

22 video and documented in the police report; it appeared on Edgar’s nose after Brunson

tased him and after the struggle on the ground that ensued while Defendants handcuffed

him. See Ex. 2. As discussed above, Edgar was seen by a nurse and given ibuprofen. Edgar

knowledge of the serious risk, the Court need not resolve what, if anything, the video demonstrates about

the existence of the injury.

does not mention any exacerbated or severe pain or prolonged injury. Thus, the contusion

did not present a serious medical need. See Hinson, 927 F.3d at 1122 (finding that plaintiff

experienced skin abrasions on his face a bruise on his knee but, because plaintiff “was not

actively bleeding,” responded that he was “alright,” “never said he was not physically

alright, never asked for medical assistance, and never complained he was in pain,” did not

present a serious medical need).

Based on these facts, Edgar cannot plausibly argue that Defendants failed to offer

him medical assistance. Thus, the Court DISMISSES Edgar’s denial-of-medical-care claim

with prejudice.

C. Edgar’s remaining state-law claims are dismissed.

This Court has jurisdiction over Edgar’s federal question claims. Therefore, the

Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As

discussed above, all of Edgar’s § 1983 claims must be dismissed, leaving only his surviving

state-law claims.

The Eleventh Circuit encourages district courts to dismiss any remaining state-law

claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial. See Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co.,

370 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (11th Cir. 2004); see also Corbitt v. Henry County Comm., No.

1:22-CV-693-RAH, 2023 WL 8587257, at *7 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 11, 2023) (“Because the

Court has determined that the Defendants’ federal claims are due to be dismissed, the Court

elects not to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claim.”) Accordingly, this Court

refrains from exercising jurisdiction over Edgar’s state-law claims, and his assault and

battery and wantonness claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.27

VII. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 30) is

GRANTED. All of Edgar’s federal claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. All claims

asserted against fictitious parties are DISMISSED. Edgar’s state-law claims are

DISMISSED without prejudice.

DONE this 3rd day of January, 2024.

/s/ Kelly Fitzgerald Pate

KELLY FITZGERALD PATE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27 “When a court decides not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3) because only state

claims remain, the proper action is a dismissal without prejudice so that the complaining party may pursue

the claim in state court.” Ingram v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cnty., 167 F. App’x 107, 109 (11th Cir. 2006).