ED CARNES, Chief Judge:
Nearly one hundred and thirty years ago, one of Georgia's greatest judges described the ideal in pleading:
Logan Bleckley, "Pleading," 3 Ga. Bar Assoc. Report 40, 41-42 (1886). The complaint that gave rise to this appeal does not approach that ideal, but it claims that the plaintiff has a case, and parts of it do a good enough job in telling what that case is to require the defendants to say "either that that is not so, or something else is so."
The story that Christopher Weiland's complaint tells is about two Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office deputies shooting, tasering, and beating him in his own bedroom without warning or provocation during their response to a "Baker Act call."
The allegations in Weiland's third amended complaint, which we accept as true for present purposes, are as follows.
On April 6, 2007, Weiland's father called 911 and stated that his son — who at the time suffered from bipolar disorder — was "acting up," was "on drugs" (prescription painkillers), and "probably ha[d] a gun." This was not the first time the Sheriff's Office had dealt with the younger Weiland; in fact, he had been "Baker Acted" on at least two earlier occasions after threatening to harm himself.
Deputies Christopher Fleming and Michael Johnson were dispatched to the Weiland residence. Weiland's father met them outside of the house and explained that his son had threatened to harm himself and that he might have a gun. As he escorted the deputies into the house, he told them that Weiland was in a bedroom at the end of a hallway.
Fleming and Johnson, guns drawn, approached the bedroom without calling out or identifying themselves. The deputies "came upon [Weiland] sitting on the edge of a bed looking down at a shotgun that lay loosely in his lap." Suddenly and without warning, Johnson fired two rounds at Weiland, knocking him off the bed.
In an effort to cover up their assault on Weiland, Johnson and Fleming "fabricated an elaborate story about [Weiland] running from them into another room, grabbing a shotgun, sitting in a chair and then pointing the gun at the Deputies as they entered the doorway." They also said that Weiland's gun had discharged during the scuffle.
Weiland was charged with two counts of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer and incarcerated for nearly two years awaiting trial. And then at his trial:
The jury acquitted Weiland of the charges against him.
Weiland filed this lawsuit in state court on January 12, 2011. His original complaint and first amended complaint asserted only state law claims. On December 17, 2012, Weiland filed a second amended complaint that added multiple claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants removed the case to the Southern District of Florida and filed a motion to dismiss.
On that deadline, Weiland filed a third amended complaint, which is the operative one in this case. The first 49 paragraphs of the third amended complaint consist of an introductory statement (paragraph 1), a jurisdiction section
The first four counts are § 1983 claims. Count one claims that Fleming, Johnson, and John Doe Deputies,
The final three counts of the complaint are brought under Florida tort law and allege excessive use of force (count five), intentional infliction of emotional distress (count six), and malicious prosecution (count seven). All three of those claims are brought only against the Sheriff's Office.
Defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint. On August 28, 2013, the district court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss and remanding the remainder of the action to state court. The
As an alternative ground for dismissal of counts two and four, which alleged that the Sheriff's Office failed to adequately train its deputies and maintained a custom or policy of covering up constitutional violations, the court determined that Weiland did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted because he failed to plausibly allege an official policy or custom, as is required for municipal liability under § 1983.
As an alternative ground for the dismissal of the part of count three that involves the Sheriff's Office itself, the court ruled that Weiland's allegations of conspiracy among Fleming, Johnson, and the Sheriff's Office were "conclusory" as to the Sheriff's Office. But not as to Fleming and Johnson, as the court added in a footnote: "However, the [c]ourt finds that with respect to Defendants Fleming and Johnson, the Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to meet the pleading requirements for a conspiracy." Just as the court had earlier observed that Weiland's second amended complaint stated a Fourth Amendment claim, it found that his third amended complaint stated a conspiracy claim even though it had dismissed that claim based on Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b).
Finally, the court concluded that sovereign immunity barred Weiland's state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution and dismissed them for that reason. The court, however, took "no position" on whether Weiland had stated a claim under Florida law for excessive force; instead, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remanded that claim to state court.
We first address whether the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed Weiland's constitutional claims against Johnson and Fleming in counts one and three of the complaint
It is unclear from the district court's order what authority it relied on in dismissing the claims against Johnson and Fleming. The order does not cite Rule 41(b) — which authorizes the dismissal with prejudice of an action for failure to obey a
With Rule 41(b) and Rule 12(b)(6) off the table, we are left to conclude that the dismissal of Weiland's claims against the two deputies was based on the district court's inherent authority to control its docket and ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits, which in some circumstances includes the power to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2) and Rule 10(b). Our standard of review of such dismissals is abuse of discretion. See Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir.2005) ("We review for abuse of discretion a district court's dismissal for failure to comply with the rules of court.").
Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Rule 10(b) further provides:
Complaints that violate either Rule 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both, are often disparagingly referred to as "shotgun pleadings." The first published opinion to discuss shotgun pleadings in any meaningful way (albeit in a dissenting footnote) described the problem with shotgun pleadings under the federal rules. See T.D.S. Inc. v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 760 F.2d 1520 (11th Cir.1985). The footnote, which began by quoting Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b), commented:
Id. at 1544 n. 14 (Tjoflat, J., dissenting).
Though the groupings cannot be too finely drawn, we have identified four rough types or categories of shotgun pleadings. The most common type — by a long shot — is a complaint containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire complaint.
The district court dismissed Weiland's § 1983 claims against Johnson and Fleming, which were contained in counts one and three of the complaint, because those counts: (1) incorporated "all of the factual allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 49 inclusive"; and (2) failed "to identify which allegations are relevant to the elements of which legal theories" and "which constitutional amendments govern which counts." The court dismissed those claims even though it was able to determine from the complaint that Weiland had stated a claim for relief against the two deputies under the Fourth Amendment and for conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights. Its reasoning for dismissing with prejudice claims that it could discern from the complaint was that it had given Weiland an opportunity to replead his complaint, and his amended pleadings "duplicate[d] the violations of Rule 8(a)(2) and 10(b) which formed the basis of the [c]ourt's [earlier] dismissal of th[o]se counts."
Weiland's re-alleging of paragraphs 1 through 49 at the beginning of each count looks, at first glance, like the most common type of shotgun pleading.
More importantly, this is not a situation where a failure to more precisely parcel out and identify the facts relevant to each claim materially increased the burden of understanding the factual allegations underlying each count. This may explain why the defendants did not move for a more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) or otherwise assert that they were having difficulty knowing what they were alleged to have done and why they were liable for doing it. And it may also explain why the district court could and did understand the claims that were stated in these two counts.
Count one claims that Fleming and Johnson,
Count three — the conspiracy count — restates in paragraphs 69 through 74 the facts relevant to a conspiracy claim against Fleming and Johnson, including the allegations that Fleming and Johnson agreed to "fabricate an elaborate story" that would justify their use of deadly force and, in furtherance of that agreement, falsified police reports and tampered with evidence. According to count three, the deputies' conspiracy resulted in the deprivation of multiple constitutional rights. As we will explain, only one of those alleged deprivations yields a cognizable claim, but for present purposes, it is enough to say that count three, like count one, gives Fleming and Johnson adequate notice of the claims against them and the factual allegations that support those claims.
Finally, we disagree with the district court's characterization of Weiland's complaint as "fail[ing] to identify ... which constitutional amendments govern which counts." The complaint does identify the constitutional amendment or amendments that govern each count.
For these reasons, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed Weiland's count one and count three claims against Fleming and Johnson on the ground that those counts did not comply with Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b). In concluding that the court should not have dismissed those two counts, we are not retreating from this circuit's criticism of shotgun pleadings, but instead are deciding that, whatever their faults, these two counts are informative enough to permit a court to readily determine if they state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court implicitly recognized as much when it observed in the orders dismissing counts one and three that they actually do state claims upon which relief can be granted. Whether those observations are correct is a question to which we now turn.
Deputies Johnson and Fleming did not argue in their motion to dismiss Weiland's third amended complaint, or in their brief to this Court, that they are entitled to qualified immunity. We limit our analysis to whether the allegations in Weiland's complaint are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted without regard to the qualified immunity defense. Our review is de novo. Saunders v. Duke, 766 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir.2014).
We begin with count one, which claims that the deputies used excessive force to seize Weiland. A citizen's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures includes "the right to be free from the use of excessive force in the course of an arrest."
Count one of Weiland's complaint states a Fourth Amendment claim against both Johnson and Fleming in their individual capacities. It alleges that when the deputies arrived at the residence, Weiland's father informed them that his son was agitated, had threatened suicide, and might have a gun. With guns drawn, Fleming and Johnson approached the bedroom without calling out or identifying themselves. When they encountered Weiland sitting on a bed and "looking down at a shotgun that lay loosely in his lap," Johnson fired two rounds at Weiland, hitting
Construing the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as we are required to do, count one alleges that Deputy Johnson shot Weiland without warning when he was not posing a threat to the deputies or anyone else; that while he was on the ground bleeding from the gunshot wound and not offering any resistance or threat, Deputy Fleming tasered Weiland; and that while he was on the ground seriously injured by both the shooting and the tasering and not offering any resistance or threat, both deputies beat him without cause. Count one states an excessive force claim upon which relief can be granted against both deputies. Because the district court erred in dismissing count one, we will reverse that part of its judgment.
Count three asserts that Johnson and Fleming, after violating Weiland's Fourth Amendment rights, conspired to cover up those violations. To state a claim for conspiracy under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendants reached an understanding or agreement that they would deny the plaintiff one of his constitutional rights; and (2) the conspiracy resulted in an actual denial of one of his constitutional rights. See Hadley v. Gutierrez, 526 F.3d 1324, 1332 (11th Cir. 2008). Here is how count three describes the agreement and actions taken in furtherance of it:
Those allegations adequately state that there was an agreement between the two deputies to frame Weiland for a crime he did not commit.
Count three goes on to allege that the deputies' agreement, and the actions taken in furtherance of that agreement, resulted in the deprivation of Weiland's constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It also identifies "unjust incarceration" as the constitutional injury that Weiland suffered as a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy. (Weiland was imprisoned for nearly two years between his arrest and trial, at which point he was acquitted.)
We are left, then, with the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. Weiland claims that he was detained improperly and prosecuted for charges based on evidence fabricated by the deputies and lies contained in their police reports. "Our Court has identified malicious prosecution as a violation of the Fourth Amendment and a viable constitutional tort cognizable under § 1983." Wood v. Kesler, 323 F.3d 872, 881 (11th Cir.2003). Additionally, the specific injury identified by Weiland — i.e., unjust incarceration — is a deprivation of liberty redressable under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Campbell v. Johnson, 586 F.3d 835, 840 (11th Cir.2009). Because count three specifies a causal connection between the alleged cover up and the specific deprivation of Weiland's constitutional rights, it sufficiently alleges "an underlying actual denial of his constitutional rights," which is required to state a claim for conspiracy under § 1983. Hadley, 526 F.3d at 1332 (quotation marks omitted). For these reasons, we will reverse the part of the district court's judgment dismissing count three as to Deputy Johnson and Deputy Fleming.
We now turn to the question of whether Weiland's complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted against the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office. Although the Supreme Court has held that local government may be subject to liability under § 1983, a plaintiff cannot rely upon the doctrine of respondeat superior to hold the government liable. Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 693-94, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2037, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). He must instead establish that the government unit has a "policy or custom" that caused the injury. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 1203, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989).
In counts two and four, Weiland claims that the Sheriff's Office maintained two unconstitutional policies: (1) a policy of not training its deputies in the appropriate use of force when seizing mentally ill citizens for transportation to mental health facilities (count two); and (2) a policy of using internal affairs investigations to cover up the use of excessive force against mentally ill citizens (count four). We take the two claims in that order.
"In limited circumstances, a local government's decision not to train certain employees ... to avoid violating citizens' rights may rise to the level of an official government policy for purposes of § 1983." Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 131 S.Ct. 1350, 1359, 179 L.Ed.2d 417 (2011). But "[a] pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees is ordinarily necessary to demonstrate deliberate indifference for purposes of failure to train." Id. at 1359-60 (quotation marks omitted).
Our analysis is not altered by the fact that evidence of previous incidents is not required to establish city policy if the need to train and supervise in a particular area is "so obvious" that liability attaches for a single incident. See Gold, 151 F.3d at 1352. The complaint does not allege that the need for specialized training in the constitutional restrictions on the use of force when dealing with mentally ill citizens is "so obvious" that the failure to provide such training amounts to deliberate indifference. The district court's dismissal of count two is correct.
As for count four, the complaint does not plausibly allege that the Sheriff's Office has had a policy of using internal affairs investigations to cover up the use of excessive force against the mentally ill. The only facts that it alleges in support of that claim are about Deputies Fleming and Johnson's own conduct after the shooting coupled with the naked assertion that the internal affairs investigation into the administrative complaint that Weiland filed
The complaint attempts to state one other § 1983 claim against the Sheriff's Office. Count three alleges that the Sheriff's Office conspired with Johnson and Fleming to conceal the deprivation of Weiland's constitutional rights. While this Court has never had occasion to hold that a conspiracy claim against a municipality must include the existence of a policy or custom underlying the conspiracy, that has to be so. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 691, 98 S.Ct. at 2036 ("[T]he language of § 1983, read against the background of the same legislative history, compels the conclusion that Congress did not intend municipalities to be held liable unless action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort.") (emphasis added). Neither count three nor any other part of the complaint contains sufficient, non-conclusory allegations that there is an official "policy or custom" of covering up constitutional deprivations like the ones that Weiland claims to have suffered. The district court's dismissal of count three insofar as it is against the Sheriff's Office is correct.
The only remaining claims against the Sheriff's Office that are before us in this appeal are the state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (count six) and malicious prosecution (count seven). The district court ruled that both claims were barred by sovereign immunity. Florida courts have long recognized that Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a) — which provides that the State and its subdivisions "shall not be liable in tort for the acts or omissions of an officer, employee, or agent... committed ... in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property" — bars claims for both intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution. See Williams v. City of Minneola, 619 So.2d 983, 986 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (compiling Florida cases that use "reckless conduct" and "willful and wanton conduct" interchangeably and holding that the reckless conduct element of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim "would at least constitute willful and wanton conduct" under § 768.28(9)(a)); Johnson v. State Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 695 So.2d 927, 930 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (citing several cases for the proposition that "[s]ection 768.28(9)(a) bars an action for malicious prosecution against the state or its subdivisions arising from the malicious acts of their employees"). The district court's dismissal of counts six and seven against the Sheriff's Office is correct.
We REVERSE the part of the district court's judgment dismissing count one of Weiland's third amended complaint. We also REVERSE the part of the judgment dismissing count three as to Fleming and Johnson. However, we AFFIRM the dismissal of count three as to the Sheriff's Office and the dismissal of counts two, four, six, and seven in their entirety.
The district court's discretionary remand of count five to state court was predicated on its belief that "[no] viable federal claims" remained. Because that has now changed, we VACATE the part of the district court's order that remanded
However, "a dismissal with prejudice, whether on motion or sua sponte, is an extreme sanction that may be properly imposed only when: `(1) a party engages in a clear pattern of delay or willful contempt (contumacious conduct); and (2) the district court specifically finds that lesser sanctions would not suffice.'" Id. at 1337-38 (emphasis omitted) (quoting World Thrust Films, Inc. v. Int'l Family Entm't, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456 (11th Cir.1995)).
A complaint is not always required to contain a separate count for each constitutional provision that the same set of facts is claimed to violate. Rule 10(b) states only that "[i]f doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence... must be stated in a separate count or defense." It does not state that a contention that one transaction or occurrence violates multiple constitutional provisions must be stated in multiple counts. Multiplicity does not always equate with clarity. A separate count for the Fourth Amendment claim, the Fifth Amendment claim, and the Eighth Amendment claim — all based on the same "transaction or occurrence" of allegedly excessive and unreasonable force — would not "promote clarity" in this case.
During oral argument, Weiland's attorney directed us to paragraph 33 of the complaint, which alleges that "[n]umerous police shootings of people with mental illnesses, both in Palm Beach County and nationally, in addition to thousands of contacts between [the Sheriff's Office] Deputies and people with mental illnesses, have placed [the Sheriff's Office] on notice that there is a need for specialized training of Deputies to deal with people with mental illnesses." Those allegations are not enough. Mere "contacts" between deputies and mentally ill citizens are insufficient to put the Sheriff's Office on notice of the need for training, especially where "the failure to train or supervise is generally not `so likely' to produce a wrong decision as to support an inference of deliberate indifference." Sewell v. Town of Lake Hamilton, 117 F.3d 488, 490 (11th Cir.1997) (quotation marks omitted). Any alleged shootings out-side of the Sheriff Office's jurisdiction do not establish a pattern of similar constitutional violations by employees of the Sheriff's Office that would put it on notice that its own training is inadequate. Finally, to the extent that police shootings of the mentally ill have occurred in Palm Beach County, Weiland must allege, with some "factual enhancement," Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1966, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), that those shootings gave rise to "similar constitutional violations," Connick, 131 S.Ct. at 1360 (noting that previous Brady violations by prosecutors were insufficient to put the district attorney's office on notice of the need to train because "those incidents [were] not similar to the violation at issue"). He has not done so.
