Brenda Bellay v. Officer Tyler Shue

USCA11 Case: 22-12962 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12962
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
BRENDA BELLAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
OFFICER TYLER SHUE,
individually,
CITY OF TAMPA,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 22-12962 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12962
D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cv-00206-WFJ-JSS
____________________
Before JORDAN, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Brenda Bellay sued the City of Tampa, Florida, and Officer
Tyler Shue of the Tampa Police Department for, among other
things, false arrest, battery, and excessive force under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and state law. Although Bellay’s case survived a motion to
dismiss and motion for summary judgment, it was not ultimately
decided on the merits. Instead, the district court dismissed the case
with prejudice as a sanction for spoliation of evidence and false tes-
timony.
On the weekend before the trial was set to start, Bellay’s
counsel informed the defense that Bellay—the only party to have
recorded the incident giving rise to her claims—had produced a
new, sixth video clip. Finding the video suspicious, the district
court granted the defendants’ motion for a mistrial, discharged the
jury, and permitted discovery into the provenance of the videos
provided by Bellay. Following discovery, briefing, expert testi-
mony, and an evidentiary hearing, the court entered an order, de-
tailing the issues with the videos’ reliability. The court found Bel-
lay “engaged in a clear pattern of willful contempt by tampering
with critical evidence, thereby impairing the [c]ourt’s prior sum-
mary judgment ruling and prejudicing the defense.”
USCA11 Case: 22-12962 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2023 Page: 3 of 3
22-12962 Opinion of the Court 3
Bellay completely fails to address the bases for the dismissal
sanction in her initial brief, focusing entirely on the merits of her
claims. “We have long held that an appellant abandons a claim
when he either makes only passing references to it or raises it in a
perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and author-
ity.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th
Cir. 2014). At most, Bellay notes the sanction dismissal in the
“Statement of the Case” section, and she asserts in the first sentence
of the “Summary of Argument” section that the court “erred in de-
termining that the claim should be dismissed due to spoilation of
the evidence.” These passing references are not enough to raise
the issue. See id. at 681-82.
Bellay made some arguments about the sanction for the first
time in her reply brief after the appellees pointed out the abandon-
ment in their response brief. But Bellay’s arguments come too late
as we will not generally consider arguments raised for the first time
in a reply brief. Id. at 682-83; accord Big Top Koolers, Inc. v. Circus-
Man Snacks, Inc., 528 F.3d 839, 844 (11th Cir. 2008).
Bellay has abandoned any argument about the basis for the
district court’s dismissal of her case, so the district court’s judgment
is due to be affirmed. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 683; Timson v.
Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.