Khoury v. The Miami-Dade County School Board et al

Filing 246

ORDER denying 232 Motion to Reinstate Count VII of the Complaint. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 3/3/2022. See attached document for full details. (ls)

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Susan Khoury, Plaintiff
v.
Miami–Dade County School Board
and Gregory Williams, Defendants.

)
)
Civil Action No. 16-20680-Civ-Scola
)
)

Order
Before the Court is Plaintiff Susan Khoury’s motion to reinstate Count
VII of the complaint against the Defendant Miami–Dade County School Board
(ECF No. 232). The Court previously disposed of that count on summary
judgment. (See ECF No. 188). Ms. Khoury appealed the Court’s summary
judgment order to the Eleventh Circuit, which returned a mandate affirming
the Court’s grant of summary judgment to the School Board and remanding
certain claims against Defendant Gregory Williams. (See ECF No. 225.)
The School Board’s liability in this case was predicated on Officer
Williams having acted pursuant to “a policy statement, ordinance, regulation or
decision officially adopted and promulgated by [the School Board’s] officers.”
Monell v. New York City Dep’t Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). On
summary judgment, the Court found “no facts in the record demonstrat[ing]”
the existence of “a policy, custom, or practice of improperly invoking the Baker
Act at the time of th[e] incident[,]” and entered judgment in favor of the School
Board. (ECF No. 188, 11.) The Eleventh Circuit agreed. (ECF No. 225, 28-29.)
In her motion, filed roughly a month before trial, Ms. Khoury argues that
the Court should reinstate Count VII against the School Board because the
Eleventh Circuit was “silent . . . regarding Ms. Khoury’s state-law false arrest
claim against the School Board[.]” (ECF No. 232, 2.) That is wrong. By
upholding the Court’s ruling on Ms. Khoury’s Monell claim, the Eleventh
Circuit necessarily foreclosed Ms. Khoury from attempting to reassert claims
against the School Board. The Court “may not alter, amend, or examine the
[Eleventh Circuit’s] mandate, or give any further relief or review . . .” in respect
thereof. See Friedman v. Mkt. St. Mortg. Corp., 520 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir.
2008) (quoting Piambino v. Bailey, 757 F.2d 1112, 1120 (11th Cir. 1985)).
Accordingly, Ms. Khoury’s motion (ECF No. 232) is denied.
Done and ordered, at Miami, Florida, on March 3, 2022.

________________________________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge