John Cottam v. Douglas Pelton ( 2018 )

Case: 18-10094 Date Filed: 09/10/2018 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-10094
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cv-00413-JSM-PRL
JOHN COTTAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF WILDWOOD, et al.,
Defendants,
DOUGLAS PELTON,
City of Wildwood Police Officer,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(September 10, 2018)
Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
Case: 18-10094 Date Filed: 09/10/2018 Page: 2 of 10
PER CURIAM:
John Cottam brought this action against Officer Douglas Pelton, asserting
false arrest and malicious prosecution claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims under Florida law
after Cottam was stopped for speeding and arrested for “eluding,” in violation of
Fla. Stat. § 316.1935(2). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
Pelton, concluding (1) that Pelton was entitled to qualified immunity as to both of
the § 1983 claims, (2) that Pelton’s conduct while arresting Cottam was not
sufficiently outrageous as to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress,
and (3) that Pelton was immune from liability for the negligent infliction of
emotional distress claim under Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a).
On appeal, Cottam argues that the district court erred in granting summary
judgment because there were numerous disputed issues of material fact
demonstrating that Pelton fabricated the eluding charge. After careful review, we
affirm. 1
1
We review a district court’s entry of summary judgment de novo. Hallmark Developers, Inc. v.
Fulton Cty., Ga., 466 F.3d 1276, 1283 (11th Cir. 2006). Summary judgment is appropriate when
the evidence presents no genuine dispute as to any material fact and compels judgment as a
matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A fact is material if it may
affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A material fact is genuinely in dispute if the record evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. Factual disputes that are
unnecessary will not be counted. Id.2
Case: 18-10094 Date Filed: 09/10/2018 Page: 3 of 10
I
Qualified immunity protects government officials engaged in discretionary
functions unless they violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional
rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Keating v. City of Miami,
598 F.3d 753, 762 (11th Cir. 2010). To receive qualified immunity, “the public
official must first prove that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary
authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.” Kingsland v. City of Miami,
382 F.3d 1220, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004). Here, Pelton was acting within the scope of
his discretionary authority when he stopped and arrested Cottam. So the burden
shifts to Cottam to show that qualified immunity should not apply because Pelton
(1) violated a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established at the
time of the incident. Garczynski v. Bradshaw, 573 F.3d 1158, 1166 (11th Cir.
2009). We may consider these two prongs in any order. Pearson v. Callahan, 555
U.S. 223, 236 (2009).
A
An officer is entitled to qualified immunity against false-arrest claims if,
based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer had arguable probable cause
to effectuate the arrest. Davis v. Williams, 451 F.3d 759, 762–63 (11th Cir. 2006).
Arguable probable cause exists where an objectively reasonable officer in the same
circumstances and possessing the same knowledge as the arresting officer could
3
Case: 18-10094 Date Filed: 09/10/2018 Page: 4 of 10
have believed that probable cause existed. Thornton v. City of Macon, 132 F.3d
1395, 1399 (11th Cir. 1998). Arguable probable cause is a lower standard than
actual probable cause, and only requires that under all of the facts and
circumstances, an officer reasonably could―but not necessarily would―have
believed that probable cause was present. Crosby v. Monroe Cty., 394 F.3d 1328,
1332 (11th Cir. 2004). Importantly, an arrest is lawful so long as there is probable
cause to support an arrest for any offense, even if probable cause does not exist for
the offense announced at the time of the arrest. Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188,
1196 (11th Cir. 2002).
Here, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of
Pelton as to Cottam’s false-arrest claim because Pelton had arguable probable
cause to arrest Cottam for at least three offenses: (1) attempting to elude arrest, in
violation of Fla. Stat. § 316.1935(1), (2) trespassing on private property, in
violation of Fla. Stat. § 810.09(1)(a)(1), and (3) speeding, in violation of Fla. Stat.
§ 316.189(1).
1
Fla. Stat. § 316.1935(1) provides that “[i]t is unlawful for the operator of any
vehicle, having knowledge that he or she has been ordered to stop such vehicle by
a duly authorized law enforcement officer, willfully to refuse or fail to stop the
vehicle in compliance with such order or, having stopped in knowing compliance
4
Case: 18-10094 Date Filed: 09/10/2018 Page: 5 of 10
with such order, willfully to flee in an attempt to elude the officer.” To establish
probable cause for an arrest under § 316.1935(1), the arresting officer must
reasonably believe that the arrestee knew that he had been ordered to stop. See
Manners v. Cannella, 891 F.3d 959, 970 (11th Cir. 2018). Based solely on
Cottam’s version of events, Pelton witnessed Cottam speed down the highway
while Pelton pursued him with his lights flashing, and then witnessed Cottam turn
onto a side road, drive past a public parking lot, drive past “no trespassing” and
“do not enter” signs, enter into a restricted railroad area, and maneuver his car
around barricades and onto the train tracks, before stopping his vehicle between the
tracks. On these undisputed facts alone, an objectively reasonable officer could
have believed that Cottam knew that he had been ordered to stop, but was
attempting to elude arrest. Accordingly, Pelton had arguable probable cause to
arrest Cottam for attempting to elude arrest in violation of Fla. Stat. § 316.1935(1).
2
Fla. Stat. § 810.09(1)(a)(1) provides that it is unlawful to willfully enter onto
property with a notice against trespassing. In this case, the arrest scene photos
show, and Cottam admits, that he drove past a “NO TRESPASSING” sign and
entered onto private property. Moreover, Cottam does not raise any issues on
appeal to counter this determination. Therefore, Pelton also had arguable probable
5
Case: 18-10094 Date Filed: 09/10/2018 Page: 6 of 10
cause to arrest Cottam for trespassing on private property, in violation of
§ 810.09(1)(a)(1).
3
Finally, Fla. Stat. § 316.189(1) provides that it is unlawful for any person to
exceed a posted speed limit. Id. Here, Cottam did not dispute that he was
traveling more than 20 miles-per-hour over the posted speed limit. Although
§ 316.189(1) is only a misdemeanor, under Florida law, Pelton was entitled to
perform a full custodial arrest. See Durruthy v. Pastor, 351 F.3d 1080, 1093 (11th
Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Pelton also had arguable probable cause to arrest Cottam
for speeding in violation of Fla. Stat. § 316.189(1).
* * *
Because even based solely on Cottam’s version of events, Pelton had
arguable probable cause to arrest Cottam under Fla. Stat. §§ 316.1935(1),
810.09(1)(a)(1), and 316.189(1), Cottam’s assertions that Pelton fabricated other
aspects of the eluding charge are immaterial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (“Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome
of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary
judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be
counted.”).
6
Case: 18-10094 Date Filed: 09/10/2018 Page: 7 of 10
B
To establish a malicious-prosecution claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must
prove (1) the elements of common law malicious prosecution and (2) a violation of
his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures. Kingsland,
382 F.3d at 1234. Under the second prong, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that he
“was seized in relation to the prosecution, in violation of his constitutional rights.”
Id. at 1235. In the case of a warrantless arrest, this requires that the party was
arraigned or indicted, not merely arrested. Id.
Here, Cottam was never arraigned or indicted, but was merely arrested.
Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment against
Cottam’s malicious-prosecution claim because Cottam was never seized in
violation of his constitutional rights. See id.
Moreover, and in any event, Cottam’s malicious-prosecution claim is
precluded because, as already explained, Pelton had arguable probable cause to
arrest Cottam. See Black v. Wigington, 811 F.3d 1259, 1267 (11th Cir. 2016)
(“[T]he presence of probable cause defeats a claim of malicious prosecution.”).
II
Under Florida law, no government agent shall be personally liable for acts
within the scope of his employment unless the government agent acted in bad faith
or with a malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting a wanton and willful
7
Case: 18-10094 Date Filed: 09/10/2018 Page: 8 of 10
disregard of human rights, safety, or property. Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a). The
existence of probable cause contradicts any suggestion of malicious intent or bad
faith. Wood v. Kesler, 323 F.3d 872, 884 (11th Cir. 2003).
A
To establish an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim under
Florida law, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct was intentional or
reckless, was outrageous, and caused severe emotional distress. Horizons
Rehabilitation, Inc. v. Healthcare & Ret. Corp., 810 So. 2d 958, 964 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 2002). The standard in Florida for outrageous conduct—which is a question
of law—is extremely high. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson, 467 So. 2d 277, 278
(Fla. 1985). The plaintiff must show that the defendant’s actions were “so extreme
in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency.” Von Stein v. Brescher,
904 F.2d 572, 584 (11th Cir. 1990). An officer is never liable where he has done
no more than to insist upon his legal rights in a permissible way, even though he is
well aware that such insistence is certain to cause emotional distress. McCarson,
467 So. 2d at 279.
The district court properly granted summary judgment against Cottam’s
intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim because Pelton’s conduct while
arresting Cottam was not sufficiently outrageous. See Von Stein, 904 F.2d at 584;
McCarson, 467 So. 2d at 279. Moreover, because Pelton had arguable probable
8
Case: 18-10094 Date Filed: 09/10/2018 Page: 9 of 10
cause to arrest Cottam, his conduct was not malicious or in bad faith; accordingly,
he is entitled to immunity under Florida law. See Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a).
B
To establish a negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim under Florida
law (1) the plaintiff must suffer a physical injury, (2) the plaintiff’s physical injury
must be caused by the psychological trauma, (3) the plaintiff must be involved in
some way in the event causing the negligent injury to another, and (4) the plaintiff
must have a close personal relationship to the directly injured person. Zell v. Meek,
665 So. 2d 1048, 1054 (Fla. 1995). Additionally, the plaintiff generally must
demonstrate that the emotional stress suffered flowed from injuries sustained in an
impact. Fernander v. Bonis, 947 So. 2d 584, 590 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)
(noting that there are exceptions to Florida’s impact rule, but applying the rule to
dismiss a negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim alleging a false arrest).
Here, the district court’s grant of summary judgment against Cottam’s
negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim was proper. As an initial matter,
Cottam has failed to show that his emotional stress was caused by injuries he
sustained in an impact, or that he should otherwise be granted an exception from
Florida’s impact rule. See id. Furthermore, because Pelton had arguable probable
cause to arrest Cottam, Pelton is again entitled to immunity under Florida
law. See Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a).
9
Case: 18-10094 Date Filed: 09/10/2018 Page: 10 of 10
III
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Pelton is entitled to qualified
immunity as to his § 1983 claims, and statutory immunity as to his state law
claims. Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
10