Case: 18-14626 Date Filed: 08/22/2019 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-14626
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cv-62335-UU
ERIC WATKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
K.O. RAMCHARAN,
Deputy,
BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
Sheriff Scott Israel,
Defendant-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 22, 2019)
Before MARCUS, JORDAN and ROSEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-14626 Date Filed: 08/22/2019 Page: 2 of 3
Eric Watkins, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s sua sponte
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal,
Mr. Watkins argues that the district court failed to adequately consider his claims
that Deputy K.O. Ramcharan and the Broward County Sheriff’s Office (BSO)
violated his constitutional rights by ordering him to leave a shopping center and
threatening to arrest him if he did not.
This action arises from Mr. Watkins’ encounter with Deputy Ramcharan on
October 5, 2014. Mr. Watkins alleges that Deputy Ramcharan parked his car in front
of his vehicle in a shopping center, “blocking him from leaving.” Deputy
Ramcharan informed Mr. Watkins that he had received an anonymous complaint
about his presence on the property, ordered him to leave, and warned him that he
would be arrested for trespassing if he did not. Mr. Watkins protested that Deputy
Ramcharan lacked authority to arrest him, but departed the property without further
incident.
Mr. Watkins filed a complaint asserting various constitutional violations
under § 1983, including the deprivation of his “due process liberty rights,” and
unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He included a claim against
the BSO for failing to train its officers to properly enforce Florida’s trespass laws.
The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It concluded that Mr. Watkins had not stated a plausible claim of
2
Case: 18-14626 Date Filed: 08/22/2019 Page: 3 of 3
constitutional violations because Deputy Ramcharan had not detained him and only
threatened to arrest him. See Chandler v. Sec’y of Fla. Dep’t of Transp.,
695 F.3d
1194, 1199 (11th. Cir. 2012) (a “seizure” occurs when an officer, by means of
physical force or show of authority, terminates or restrains a person’s freedom of
movement through means intentionally applied). The district court also concluded
that the BSO and Sheriff Scott Israel were not liable for a failure to train the officers
because Mr. Watkins had been unable to demonstrate that any underlying
constitutional violation had occurred. See City of Canton v. Harris,
489 U.S. 378,
391 (1989) (for Monell liability to attach, “the identified deficiency in a city’s
training program must be closely related” to the alleged constitutional deprivation).
For the reasons outlined in the district court’s order, we agree that Mr.
Watkins failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that he suffered any
constitutional deprivation. His claims all turn on whether he was seized by
authorities and, because he was not, they each must fail. See California v. Hodari
D.,
499 U.S. 621, 627–28 (1991). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3
