JOHN E. STEELE, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on review of defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Doc. #31) filed on January 15, 2014. Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. #33) on January 29, 2014. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a Complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This obligation "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."
Plaintiff Jason Schwarz (plaintiff) initiated this action by filing a four-count complaint against Rodney Tomlinson, George Sapp, Marta Villacorta, and Janene McLaughlin (collectively, "defendants"). (Doc. #1.) The initial complaint was dismissed for pleading deficiencies. (Doc. #23.)
On December 18, 2013, plaintiff filed a four-count amended complaint setting forth a virtually identical count under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against each of the four defendants in their individual capacities. (Doc. #27.) The Amended Complaint asserts that defendants violated plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process by extraordinarily terminating him without a pre-disciplinary conference. (
Plaintiff was hired by the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) as a correctional officer in 2002. Plaintiff was assigned to Charlotte Correctional Institution and remained there until his termination on June 20, 2010.
On February 26, 2010, plaintiff was involved in an incident with an inmate which led to an investigation regarding the use of excessive force against that inmate by plaintiff and others. The investigation was conducted by defendant Janene McLaughlin, under the direction of defendants Rodney Tomlinson, George Sapp, and Marta Villacorta. On or about June 30, 2010, plaintiff was informed, without warning or an opportunity to be heard, that his employment was being extraordinarily terminated, effective immediately. The FDOC ceased paying plaintiff as of the same date.
Following his termination, plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal with the Florida Public Employees Relation Commission (PERC). PERC conducted a full post-termination evidentiary hearing that spanned nearly seven days. PERC ultimately ruled that the incident with the inmate did not justify plaintiff's extraordinary dismissal, and ordered that plaintiff be reinstated with back pay. While the PERC appeal had been pending, plaintiff accessed his state retirement funds. Under Florida law, this meant he had effectively "retired" as of that date. Therefore, PERC was able to reinstate plaintiff only until the date of his "retirement," which precluded re-employment with the FDOC.
Defendants assert that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim because the state provided plaintiff with an adequate post-deprivation procedure. (Doc. #31, pp. 3-4.) Defendants also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity, and contend that the allegations in the Amended Complaint are insufficient to provide defendants with adequate notice of the claims. (
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege "(1) that the defendant deprived [the plaintiff] of a right secured under the Constitution or federal law and (2) that such deprivation occurred under color of state law."
The focus of the motion to dismiss is the third element of a procedural due process claim — that plaintiff was provided with a constitutionally inadequate process. Plaintiff asserts that the procedural due process violation was complete upon his extraordinary termination, which had not given him notice or the opportunity to be heard. The subsequent process before the PERC, plaintiff asserts, was irrelevant and/or inadequate.
It is certainly true that as a general matter due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before a person may be deprived of property.
The Court, in determining whether plaintiff has stated a valid procedural due process claim, must therefore "look to whether the available state procedures were adequate to correct the alleged procedural deficiencies."
Florida law provides that a career service employee, such as plaintiff, may appeal an extraordinary termination to PERC. Fla. Stat. § 110.227(5)(b). If an employee appeals, PERC is required to conduct a hearing within 60 calendar days following the filing of a notice of appeal in order to determine if the agency's action was supported by cause. Fla. Stat. § 110.227(6). "If the commission [PERC] finds that cause did not exist for the agency action, the commission shall reverse the decision of the agency head and the employee shall be reinstated with or without back pay." Fla. Stat. § 110.227(6)(c). Florida law further provides that final orders issued by PERC may be reviewed by a district court of appeals. Fla. Stat. § 110.227(6)(3); Fla. Stat. § 447.504. In this matter, plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal with PERC, a full evidentiary hearing was conducted, and plaintiff was reinstated with back pay, but only through the date of his retirement. (Doc. #27, ¶¶ 28-42.) Florida law also provided plaintiff with the opportunity to appeal the employment termination decision to a district court of appeals, which, in this circuit, qualifies as an adequate post-deprivation remedy.
Plaintiff contends, however, that the available state remedies were inadequate because PERC lacks the statutory authority to award compensatory damages or punitive damages or to order back pay for the time subsequent to plaintiff's retirement. It is clear that compensatory damages and punitive damages are available under § 1983 but may not be awarded by PERC.
The Supreme Court has held that a state's remedial procedure is adequate as long as the remedy "could have fully compensated the [employee] for the property loss he suffered."
Accordingly, it is now
1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Doc. #31) is
2. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, terminate all pending motions and deadlines as moot, and close the file.