Gregory Wooden v. Oscar Andino

USCA11 Case: 22-12716 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 04/10/2023 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12716
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
GREGORY WOODEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
OSCAR ANDINO,
Detective Miami Dade Police,
Defendant-Appellee,
ERIC GOLDBERG,
Sergeant Metro Police,
USCA11 Case: 22-12716 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 04/10/2023 Page: 2 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12716
Defendant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-22265-KMW
____________________
Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Wooden, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dis-
trict court’s dismissal with prejudice of his second amended com-
plaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Liberally construed, Mr. Wooden’s 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint alleged that Detective Oscar Andino of the Mi-
ami-Dade Police Department violated his Fourth Amendment and
due process rights by offering false statements to secure a search
warrant and effectuate his arrest.
I
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a com-
plaint for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B), applying the
same standard as for dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6). See Bilal v.
Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1348-49 (11th Cir. 2001). And we liberally
construe pro se pleadings. See Tannenbaum v. United States, 148
F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
USCA11 Case: 22-12716 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 04/10/2023 Page: 3 of 5
22-12716 Opinion of the Court 3
To properly state a claim for relief, “a complaint must con-
tain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (citation omitted). Although detailed factual allegations
are not required, a pleading that offers “labels and conclusions or a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). To be facially plausible, the
plaintiff must plead facts that allow the court to draw the reasona-
ble inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
See id.II
For a § 1983 claim, “a plaintiff must show that he or she was
deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state
law.” Griffin v. City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir.
2001).
Mr. Wooden’s first apparent claim arises under the Fourth
Amendment. “[T]he Fourth Amendment requires that warrant ap-
plications contain sufficient information to establish probable
cause.” Holmes v. Kucynda, 321 F.3d 1069, 1083 (11th Cir. 2003).
An officer may be held liable under § 1983 for submitting an appli-
cation for an arrest warrant that contains false information. See
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 346 (1986). Mere negligence, how-
ever, is not enough. The officer must have knowingly or recklessly
made the false statement to secure the warrant. See Kelly v. Curtis,
21 F.3d 1544, 1554 (11th Cir. 1994). See also Franks v. Delaware,
438 U.S. 154, 156 (1978).
USCA11 Case: 22-12716 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 04/10/2023 Page: 4 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12716
Here, Mr. Wooden’s complaint can be boiled down to two
central allegations. First, Detective Andino “applied for a search
warrant for Gregory Wooden for second degree murder.” D.E. 10
at 2. Second, Detective Andino “put false information in the affi-
davit for a search warrant to mislead the judge to believe that there
was probable cause to search and arrest [him] by stating that [he]
was on surveillance footage committing a murder.” Id. So Mr.
Wooden identified the allegedly false statement, but his complaint
is otherwise wholly conclusory on whether Detective Andino
knowingly or recklessly made the false statement to secure the
warrant.
For example, Mr. Wooden alleges that Detective Andino
“used false information from [a] witness that he knew was false and
failed to carry out a full and proper investigation.” Id. But he does
not allege any facts to support, or from which one could reasonably
infer, this conclusion. We do not know what information Detec-
tive Andino obtained, why he knew it was false, how he failed to
conduct a proper investigation, or even who the witness was. Did
Detective Andino hear from the witness that Mr. Wooden was
seen on surveillance footage committing a murder? Did Detective
Andino fabricate the footage? Did the footage clearly depict some-
one other than Mr. Wooden? After reading the complaint, we are
left guessing. These pleading deficiencies are fatal to the Fourth
Amendment claim. See Kelly, 21 F.3d at 1554.
As to Mr. Wooden’s due process claim, the underlying the-
ory is unclear from the face of the complaint. Presumably, he
USCA11 Case: 22-12716 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 04/10/2023 Page: 5 of 5
22-12716 Opinion of the Court 5
claims that, because the warrant was based on false information,
he was arrested without a fair and reliable determination of proba-
ble cause. See, e.g., Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 124-25 (1975).
But as we noted above, Mr. Wooden did not provide sufficient fac-
tual allegations for a court to determine if this was plausibly so.
Even liberally construed, Mr. Wooden’s complaint provides no
guidance as to how Detective Andino deprived him of due process.
Moreover, the magistrate judge afforded Mr. Wooden two
opportunities to amend the complaint and expressly informed him
of the deficiencies and how he could cure them. Mr. Wooden took
those opportunities to improve the style of the complaint but made
no changes to its substance. Consequently, Mr. Wooden cannot
show that the district court’s dismissal with prejudice was errone-
ous.
III
The district court did not err in dismissing Mr. Wooden’s
second amended complaint as to Detective Andino for failure to
state a claim. Its decision is affirmed. *
AFFIRMED.
* We add a note of clarification. In his initial complaint, Mr. Wooden named
Sergeant Eric Goldberg as an additional defendant. When he amended his
complaint, Mr. Wooden dropped Sergeant Goldberg as a defendant. Because
“an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint,” Pacific Bell Tele-
phone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009), the
order of dismissal applied only to Detective Andino.