Case: 18-10923 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-10923
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-22820-JAL
LIZANNE DEEGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HOMESTEAD POLICE DEPARTMENT,
ALEXANDER ROLLE,
ANTONIO AQUINO,
MARIE KENT,
CITY OF HOMESTEAD,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 14, 2018)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, BRANCH and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-10923 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 2 of 7
Lizanne Deegan, a former sergeant of the Police Department for the City of
Homestead, appeals the dismissal in part and summary judgment in part against her
amended complaint that she was falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted in
violation of federal and state law.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Deegan was suspended,
indicted, and terminated for official misconduct, but after the dismissal of
Deegan’s indictment, she was reinstated to a position with a lesser rank and salary.
Deegan alleged that former investigators Antonio Aquino and Marie Kent
fabricated evidence against her during their criminal and internal affairs
investigations and that the City and its Chief of Police, Alexander Rolle, were
responsible for the officers’ unlawful conduct. After the district court dismissed
Deegan’s claims against the City and against Chief Rolle for failure to state a
claim, Officers Aquino and Kent moved for summary judgment. Deegan moved
for leave to file a second amended complaint against the City and Chief Rolle, but
the district court denied the motion. Later, the district court entered summary
judgment in favor of the officers. We affirm.
We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint, St. George v. Pinellas Cty.,
285 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002),and a summary judgment, Cozzi v. City of
Birmingham,
892 F.3d 1288, 1293 (11th Cir. 2018) . We view the allegations in the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept her well-pleaded
facts as true. St. George,
285 F.3d at 1337. Summary judgment is appropriate when
2
Case: 18-10923 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 3 of 7
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
The district court did not err by dismissing Deegan’s claim against Chief
Rolle for false arrest in violation of federal law. Deegan alleged that she had a
“falling out” with Chief Rolle that caused him to “develop[] a personal animosity
towards [her].” She also alleged that Officer Kent “brought in [Officer] Aquino to
assist in [the internal affairs] investigati[on] with Chief Rolle’s permission,” the
two officers “conducted a flawed and incomplete investigation and falsified the
result . . . to obtain an unjustified arrest warrant,” and Officer Aquino’s “affidavit
[for the warrant] contained numerous false allegations and material
misrepresentations and omissions.” And Deegan alleged that “Chief Rolle
authorized and approved [her] arrest.” But these allegations establish an unlawful
arrest by Officers Aquino and Kent, not Chief Rolle. See Kingsland v. City of
Miami,
382 F.3d 1220, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (making an arrest without a warrant
or probable cause and “falsifying evidence” violates the Fourth Amendment).
Because Chief Rolle did not personally participate in the investigation or in
preparing the affidavit, he could not be liable unless he caused the officers to act
unlawfully or he knowingly failed to thwart their unlawful conduct. See Keating v.
City of Miami,
598 F.3d 753, 762 (11th Cir. 2010).
3
Case: 18-10923 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 4 of 7
Deegan failed to allege that Chief Rolle instructed the officers to falsify
evidence or that he knew they would do so. Nor did Deegan allege that Chief Rolle
ignored a widespread history of officers falsifying evidence against suspects or that
the unlawful conduct was attributable to a policy Chief Rolle instituted or to a
custom that he condoned. See Cottone v. Jenne,
326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir.
2003). Deegan failed to state a claim that Chief Rolle was liable for the allegedly
unlawful actions of his subordinates.
The district court also did not err by dismissing Deegan’s claim against
Chief Rolle for malicious prosecution in violation of federal law. A police officer
is not the legal cause of a malicious prosecution when he is not “responsible for the
decision to prosecute, and . . . [did not] improperly influence[] the decision to
prosecute.” Eubanks v. Gerwen,
40 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (11th Cir. 1994). Deegan
failed to allege that Chief Rolle made the decision to prosecute or convinced the
prosecutor to indict her.
Deegan has abandoned any challenge that she could have made to the
dismissal of her claims against Chief Rolle under state law for false arrest and
malicious prosecution. “[T]he law is by now well settled in this Circuit that a legal
claim or argument that has not been briefed before the court is deemed abandoned
and its merits will not be addressed.” Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385
4
Case: 18-10923 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 5 of
7
F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). Deegan makes no argument against the
dismissal of her claims against Chief Rolle under state law.
Deegan also identifies no error in the dismissal of her claims against the
City. To impose liability on the municipality, Deegan had to establish that the City
established or ratified a custom or policy that caused Officers Aquino and Kent to
act unlawfully. See McDowell v. Brown,
392 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004). But
the district court ruled that the City’s alleged “fail[ure] to take any action to limit
the [Chief’s] arbitrary policies” of “showing favoritism” and “of retaliation” did
not amount to a violation of her constitutional rights, and Deegan does not
challenge that ruling. See Access Now, 385 F.3d at 1330. She argues that the City
“may be liable to the extent that Chief Rolle” instituted a policy “to unlawfully
deny public records requests,” but we decline to consider a fact-intensive theory of
liability that Deegan never presented to the district court. See Blue Martini
Kendall, LLC v. Miami Dade Cty. Fla.,
816 F.3d 1343, 1349 (11th Cir. 2016).
Deegan also has abandoned any challenge she could have made to the ruling that
she failed to state a claim against the City for inadequate supervision and training
of its police chief and internal affairs officers. See Access Now, 385 F.3d at 1330.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Deegan’s motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint against the City and Chief Rolle.
“District courts have unquestionable authority to control their own dockets” and
5
Case: 18-10923 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 6 of 7
enjoy “broad discretion in deciding how best to manage the cases before them.”
Smith v. Psychiatric Sols., Inc.,
750 F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). Deegan filed her motion for leave to amend
two weeks after the district court dismissed her first amended complaint, more than
six months after the City and Chief Rolle moved for the dismissal, and more than
seven months after the deadline expired to file an amended complaint. See Reese v.
Herbert,
527 F.3d 1253, 1263 (11th Cir. 2008). Deegan also failed to establish
good cause to amend her complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). She does not
dispute that the findings she sought to include in her second amended complaint
were “allegations . . . available to her at the time she filed her first amended
complaint” and that her allegations “appear insufficient to state a claim against the
Chief or the City.” We cannot say it was an abuse of discretion when the district
court denied Deegan’s motion “to preserve [its] trial calendar and the orderly
administration of its docket” and as “too late and prejudicial.”
Deegan also fails to identify any error in the decision to enter summary
judgment in favor of Officers Aquino and Kent and against her claims of false
arrest and malicious prosecution under federal and state law. Deegan argues that
the facts in the joint pretrial stipulation precluded summary judgment, but the
district court based its ruling on the statement of undisputed facts that the officers
submitted with their motion, as required by a local rule, see S.D. Fla. L. R. 56.1.
6
Case: 18-10923 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 7 of 7
That rule provides that “[a]ll material facts set forth in the movant’s statement . . .
will be deemed admitted unless controverted by the opposing party’s statement,
provided that the Court finds that the movant’s statement is supported by evidence
in the record.” S.D. Fla. L. R. 56.1(b). We “give[] great deference to [the] district
court’s interpretation of its local rules,” Clark v. Hous. Auth. of City of Alma,
971
F.2d 723, 727 (11th Cir. 1992), and because Deegan failed to file a “[s]tatement of
material facts . . . in opposition to [the officers’] motion for summary judgment,”
S.D. Fla. L. R. 56.1(a), we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion
when it “deemed admitted” the version of events in the officers’ statement of
undisputed facts. Deegan does not dispute, in the light of the facts in the officers’
statement, that they possessed probable cause to arrest her, which defeated her
claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution.
We AFFIRM the judgment in favor of the City, Chief Rolle, and Officers
Aquino and Kent.
7
