Roca-Moreno v. Jones et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying 41 Defendants' motion to dismiss; directing Defendants to answer 36 Plaintiff's second amended complaint within twenty days of the date of the order. Signed by Judge Brian J. Davis on 4/24/2020. (KLC)

Case 5:18-cv-00231-BJD-PRL Document 51 Filed 04/24/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID 240

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
ALFREDO ROCA-MORENO, III,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 5:18-cv-231-Oc-39PRL

FNU ROSSITER, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________
ORDER
Plaintiff, Alfredo Roca-Moreno, III, an inmate of the Florida
penal system, is proceeding on a second amended complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 36; Compl.). Plaintiff sues six individuals
for

conduct

Correctional
officers

that

occurred

Institution

Crawford,

Moore,

on

(MCI).
and

December

18,

Plaintiff
Burg

2017,

alleges

“rushed”

him

at

Marion

Defendantand,

after

Plaintiff submitted to restraints, tackled him to the floor. See
Compl. at 8-9. Plaintiff says the officers put a spit shield over
his face because he was bleeding so much, but the spit shield was
on the wrong way making it difficult for him to breathe and causing
him to gag on his own blood. Id. at 10.
Plaintiff alleges Defendant-officers Gieger and Mohs then
arrived with a camera, and Plaintiff was directed to walk outside
the dorm. Plaintiff told Defendant-officers he could not breathe,
but they ignored him, taunted him, threatened him, and punched

Case 5:18-cv-00231-BJD-PRL Document 51 Filed 04/24/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID 241

him. Id. at 10-11. Because of the spit shield, Plaintiff could not
see which officers did or said what. Plaintiff alleges one officer
(he does not know who) grabbed his head and slammed him to the
ground while another officer (again, unknown) used his knee to
push on Plaintiff’s head, “crushing [Plaintiff’s] skull.” Id. at
11.

Plaintiff

asserts

the

pressure

caused

him

to

lose

consciousness. Id. Defendant-officers then took Plaintiff to the
nurse, who “reproach[ed]” the officers for the placement of the
spit shield, telling them Plaintiff could have “suffocated . . .
or drown.” Id. Plaintiff alleges Defendant-officers filed false
disciplinary reports to cover up their abuse. Id. at 12.
Plaintiff asserts claims under the Eighth Amendment and under
state law. Id. at 7. He alleges Defendant-officers (Crawford,
Moore,

Burg,

Amendment

Geiger,

for

the

and

use

Mohs)

of

are

liable

excessive

force

under
or

for

the

Eighth

failing

to

intervene during a use of excessive force. Id. at 13-15. Plaintiff
asserts the facts that support the Eighth Amendment claims also
support

liability

under

state

law

(assault

and

battery

and

intentional infliction of emotional distress). Id. Plaintiff also
sues Warden Rossiter, who Plaintiff alleges “was on notice of [a]
pattern of excessive unnecessary force . . . by these subordinates
and did not act to curb the practice but encourages it” by
approving

fake

disciplinary

reports,

2

denying

grievances,

and

Case 5:18-cv-00231-BJD-PRL Document 51 Filed 04/24/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID 242

failing to investigate incidents.

Id. at 13. As relief, Plaintiff

seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 13-15.
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 41;
Motion).

First,

Defendants

argue

Plaintiff’s

second

amended

complaint does not comply with federal pleading requirements. See
Motion

at

6-7.

Specifically,

Defendants

fault

Plaintiff

for

failing to identify which officer made offensive statements or
used force against him after the spit shield was placed on his
head

and

for

disciplinary
Plaintiff’s

failing
reports.

state-law

to

specify

Id.

at

claims

are

which

7.

officers

Defendants

not

filed
also

well-pled.

Id.

false

contend
Second,

Defendants argue Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Warden
Rossiter because “Plaintiff makes no allegation that Defendant
Warden Rossiter personally participated in any wrongdoing, nor
does Plaintiff allege any causal connection between Defendant
Warden

Rossiter’s

actions

and

any

alleged

constitutional

violations.” Id. at 9.
Plaintiff has responded to Defendants’ motion (Doc. 50; Pl.
Resp.). Plaintiff asserts he satisfied federal pleading standards
and alleges facts to state a plausible § 1983 claim against Warden
Rossiter. See Pl. Resp. at 2-3.
A complaint must provide “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Each allegation must be “simple, concise, and
3

Case 5:18-cv-00231-BJD-PRL Document 51 Filed 04/24/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID 243

direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). A complaint must state claims in
numbered paragraphs, “each limited as far as practicable to a
single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). To state a
claim, a complaint must allege facts, accepted as true, that state
a claim “that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Legal conclusions do not suffice. Id.
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint satisfies these minimal
pleading standards. Plaintiff’s allegations are simple, concise,
and direct, stated in numbered paragraphs, and consist of facts,
not legal conclusions. Accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true,
Plaintiff asserts a plausible Eighth Amendment violation against
Defendants Crawford, Moore, and Burg for the use of excessive force
inside the dorm, and against Defendants Crawford, Moore, Burg,
Geiger, and Mohs for the use of excessive force or the failure to
intervene during such a use of force outside the dorm.
Plaintiff fails to specify which Defendants are primarily
responsible for the alleged conduct that occurred outside the dorm,
but Plaintiff explains why: he was unable to see because the spit
shield blocked his vision. See Compl. at 10-11. Requiring Plaintiff
to redraft his complaint to cure this perceived deficiency would
be futile. Plaintiff cannot conjure information he does not know.
Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, drafting an answer would
not be “impossible.” See Motion at 7. Plaintiff alleges enough to
put the Defendant-officers on notice of the claims against them.
4

Case 5:18-cv-00231-BJD-PRL Document 51 Filed 04/24/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID 244

Indeed, after setting forth his factual allegations, Plaintiff
specifies the straightforward constitutional and state-law claims
he asserts against each Defendant and references which factual
allegations (by numbered paragraph) support his claims against
each Defendant. Compl. at 13-15.1 Specifically, Plaintiff alleges
Defendants Crawford, Moore, Burg, Geiger, and Mohs either directly
used force against him or failed to “prevent or stop the excessive
use of force,” and his factual allegations describe the conduct
Plaintiff

contends

support

his

claims.

Id.

Plaintiff

alleges

enough facts “to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery
will reveal evidence” supporting the claims he asserts. Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007).
As to the claim against Warden Rossiter, Plaintiff alleges
enough to survive dismissal at this juncture. To state a claim
under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege (1) the defendant deprived
him of a constitutional right and (2) such deprivation occurred
under color of state law. Salvato v. Miley, 790 F.3d 1286, 1295
(11th Cir. 2015); Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th
Cir. 2011). A claim under § 1983 also requires “proof of an
affirmative

causal

connection

between

the

official’s

acts

or

Plaintiff does not state which Defendant fabricated
disciplinary or incident reports. See Compl. at 12. Despite this
minor lack of specificity, each Defendant certainly can admit or
deny such an allegation in answering the complaint.
1

5

Case 5:18-cv-00231-BJD-PRL Document 51 Filed 04/24/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID 245

omissions and the alleged constitutional deprivation.” Zatler v.
Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 401 (11th Cir. 1986).
An individual cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely
because of that person’s supervisory position. See Cottone v.
Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003), abrogated in part on
other grounds by Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir. 2010).
However, a supervisor may be held liable where there is a causal
connection

between

the

alleged

constitutional

violation

and

actions or inactions of the supervisor. In the absence of a
supervisor’s personal participation in the alleged conduct, a
plaintiff
showing

may

the

demonstrate
supervisor

the

knew

necessary
about

and

causal

connection

failed

to

correct

by
a

widespread history of abuse, the supervisor’s custom or policy
resulted in a constitutional violation, or the supervisor directed
a subordinate to act unlawfully or knew the subordinate would act
unlawfully and failed to prevent the action. Harrison v. Culliver,
746 F.3d 1288, 1298 (11th Cir. 2014).
Defendants incorrectly assert Plaintiff fails to “allege any
causal connection between Defendant Warden Rossiter’s actions and
any alleged constitutional violation.” Motion at 9. Plaintiff, in
fact, directly alleges facts the Eleventh Circuit has recognized
demonstrate
liability.

the

requisite

Plaintiff

causal

alleges

connection

Warden

Rossiter

for
was

supervisory
aware

of

widespread abuse and condoned or did not correct the alleged
6

Case 5:18-cv-00231-BJD-PRL Document 51 Filed 04/24/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID 246

widespread abuse by failing to train officers or hold officers
accountable, or by concealing wrongdoing. Plaintiff alleges as
follows:
This type of abuse is widespread persistent
unchecked practice custom and policy of [MCI]
that can be ascertained with the department’s
filed and records showing [a] history of
inadequate training, inadequate investigation
into these officers misusing force against
inmates that supervisors have not acted on and
covered up.
The Warden was on notice of [a] pattern of
excessive unnecessary forces in the past by
these subordinates and did not act to curb the
practice but encourages it by perfunctorily
approving bogus disciplinary report[s] and
close
management
recommendation[s],
and
deny[ing] inmates’ grievances about these
officers[’]
misconduct
towards
inmates
failing to investigate or take action against
subordinates with record[s] of misuse of
force, thus maintaining and tolerating a code
of silence of staffs’ misconduct and abuse
towards inmates.
Compl. at 12.
Plaintiff’s

allegations

are

more

than

“[l]abels

and

conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action” that amount to “naked assertions.” See Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Accepted as true,
Plaintiff’s allegations demonstrate a causal connection between
the

alleged

constitutional

violations

and

Warden

Rossiter’s

actions. Thus, Plaintiff alleges enough to proceed against Warden
Rossiter.

7

Case 5:18-cv-00231-BJD-PRL Document 51 Filed 04/24/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID 247

Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 41) is DENIED.

2.

Defendants must answer the second amended complaint

(Doc. 36) within twenty days of the date of this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 24th day of
April, 2020.

Jax-6
c:

Alfredo Roca-Moreno, III
Counsel of record

8