Taylor v. Bradshaw et al
Filing
61
OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 48 Motion to Dismiss; granting 55 Motion to Amend/Correct. Clerks Notice: Filer must separately re-file the amended pleading pursuant to Local Rule 15.1, unless otherwise ordered by the Judge(Amended Ple adings due by 8/5/2013); denying without prejudice 55 Motion to Compel; granting 56 Motion to reduce cost in this matter by allowing filing with the Clerk to be service on all defendants represented by an attorney. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 7/25/2013. (ir)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 11-80911-CIV-MARRA
CHARLOTTE TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF
RIC L. BRADSHAW; PALM BEACH
COUNTY, FLORIDA; PALM BEACH
COUNTY SHERIFF’S CAPTAIN ED
JABLONSKI; PALM BEACH
SHERIFF’S SERGEANT SCOTT
SCHWAB; PALM BEACH COUNTY
SHERIFF’S SERGEANT TERESA
BLOESER; AND PALM BEACH
SHERIFF’S DEPUTY [UNKNOWN
DUE TO REFUSAL TO GIVE ME HIS
CARD WITH HIS NAME ON IT.]
Defendants.
_______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
Filed on Behalf of Defendants, Palm Beach County Sheriff, Ric L. Bradshaw, Palm Beach
County Sheriff’s Captain Ed Jablonski, Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Sergeant Scott Schwab,
Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Sergeant Teresa Bloeser, and Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Deputy
[Unknown] [DE 48]; Plaintiff ’s Motion to Amend and Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures
Including the Name and Address of the Unknown Defendant [DE 54]; and the Motion of
Charlotte Taylor, Pro Se Plaintiff, to Reduce Cost in this Matter by Allowing Filing with the
Clerk to be Service on all Defendants Represented by an Attorney [DE 56]. The Court has
reviewed all the submissions of the parties and is otherwise duly advised in the premises.
1
Familiarity with the Court’s prior decision is assumed [DE 40]. The Court hereby incorporates
by reference the background facts and legal standards set forth therein, as none of these have
changed since the Court’s opinion and order on Defendants’ last motion to dismiss.
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint [DE 42], it is clear that Plaintiff
has attempted to comply with the Court’s prior ruling [DE 40]. The moving Defendants have
pointed to a few remaining deficiencies in Plaintiff’s pleading in their Motion to Dismiss. Upon
review of Plaintiff’s proposed Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff appears to address them.
Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion to amend as dilatory and futile [DE 58]. The Court
disagrees. With the exception of the items Plaintiff addresses in her proposed amended
complaint, the Court rejects Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
In Defendants’ motion, they object to the formulaic recitation by Plaintiff of the elements
of her causes of action; however, she has followed the Court’s prior decision in adding this
language. Defendants also raise again their qualified immunity defense; however, the Court has
already rejected that as a basis for dismissing the case at this stage of the proceedings [DE 40].
Finally, Defendants again take the position that Plaintiff is barred from bringing claims
under 42 U.S.C. §1983 because she has claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, citing
to Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta ,Ga., 112 F.3d 1522(11th Cir. 1997). Holbrook concluded that
“a plaintiff may not maintain a section 1983 action in lieu of – or in addition to – a Rehabilitation
Act or ADA cause of action if the only alleged deprivation is of the employee’s rights created
by the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA.” Id. at 1531(emphasis added). Here, Plaintiff’s 1983
claims are for the deprivation of her constitutional rights relative to access to the court. These do
not arise out of the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA. Therefore, Holbrook does not bar Plaintiff’s
1983 claims.
Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures, until Defendants answer the
2
Third Amended Complaint, it is premature for the Court to compel disclosures. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures is denied without prejudice.
Defendants did not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Reduce Cost [DE 56].
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
1.
Plaintiff ‘s Motion to Amend and Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures Including
the Name and Address of the Unknown Defendant [DE 54] is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall file and serve her Third Amended Complaint by August 5, 2013.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Disclosures is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reduce Cost in this Matter by Allowing Filing with the
Clerk to be Service on all Defendants Represented by an Attorney [DE 56] is
GRANTED.
3.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [DE 48] is
DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
Florida this 25th day of July, 2013.
______________________
KENNETH A. MARRA
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?