Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-7_18-cv-02050/USCOURTS-alnd-7_18-cv-02050-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

WESTERN DIVISION

ROBERT EVANS LEWIS, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF DECATUR, ALABAMA, et 

al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 7:18-cv-02050-LSC-JHE

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The magistrate judge filed a report on December 6, 2019, recommending the 

plaintiff’s claims against the City of Decatur Police Department and the City of 

Decatur based on municipal liability be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) for failing to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted. (Doc. 10). The magistrate judge further recommended that the 

plaintiff’s claims against Derrick Anderson for malicious prosecution related to the 

October 18, 2016 DUI charge and the plaintiff’s claims against Michael Kent for 

wrongful arrest concerning his February 17, 2017 arrest be referred to the magistrate 

judge for further proceedings. (Id.).

The plaintiff filed timely objections to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 

11). The plaintiff first objects to the finding that a motion to revoke his bond was 

filed in state court on February 10, 2017. (Id. at 1). However, this court may take 

FILED

 2020 Jan-08 PM 02:29

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 7:18-cv-02050-LSC-JHE Document 12 Filed 01/08/20 Page 1 of 6
2

judicial notice of state court pleadings, Keith v. DeKalb County, Georgia, 749 F.3d 

1034, 1041 n.18 (11th Cir. 2014), and that motion appears in state court records. See 

State v. Robert Evans Lewis, III, DC-2016-0001478.00 (state court doc. 11). 

Therein, an Assistant District Attorney alleged “[o]n or about August 30, 2016, the 

defendant reportedly went to wife’s house, damaged property, physically assaulted 

her and attempted to run over her with his car.” (Id.). Whether or not those 

allegations are true has no relevance to the claims before this court. The magistrate 

judge noted the existence of the February 10, 2017 motion to revoke bond because

here, the plaintiff challenges his February 17, 2017 arrest. (See doc. 10 at 9). 

Similarly, while the plaintiff “objects to the Court’s finding that on October 

24, 2016, he failed to appear in Decatur Municipal Court ...” (doc. 11 at 1), again 

that statement is drawn from the state court motion to revoke bond. Whether or not 

the plaintiff actually failed to appear in Decatur Municipal Court on October 24, 

2016, has no bearing on the merits of his claims here. Rather, in this action, the 

plaintiff alleges wrongful arrest. The fact of the motion to revoke bond is relevant 

to the legitimacy of the plaintiff’s arrest. The reasons underlying the motion to 

revoke bond, and whether or not those reasons have merit, are issues for the state 

court. The plaintiff’s objections to this court acknowledging the existence of the 

state court motion to revoke bond are overruled. 

Case 7:18-cv-02050-LSC-JHE Document 12 Filed 01/08/20 Page 2 of 6
3

The plaintiff next objects to the finding that his current detention appears to 

be based upon the bond revocation, because the bodycam footage of his arrest shows 

defendant Michael Kent first telling the plaintiff he is under arrest for a felony 

warrant, then admitting no felony warrant exists, then arresting the plaintiff for 

misdemeanor public intoxication. (Doc. 11 at 2). However, the court actually found 

“nothing in the record currently before the Court rules out the possibility the plaintiff 

was wrongfully arrested and detained on a false public intoxication charge on 

February 17, 2017. (Doc. 10 at 10). In other words, the finding the plaintiff objects 

to is the very finding he asserts the court should have made. This objection is 

overruled.

Finally, the plaintiff objects to the finding that his failure to supervise claim 

against the City of Decatur fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

(Doc. 11 at 2). In his amended complaint, the plaintiff alleged only that “City of 

Decatur, AL has custom of arresting me without field sobriety test and charging me 

with DUI or PI even after 0.0% BAC is established which constitutes deliberate 

indifference.” (Doc. 9 at 4). The plaintiff now claims the purchase of bodycams 

was “specifically for the purpose of supervising the officers wearing the cameras. 

Obviously the municipality knew of the need when it purchased the cameras ... and 

ignoring what they capture constitutes deliberate indifference.” (Doc. 11 at 2). 

Case 7:18-cv-02050-LSC-JHE Document 12 Filed 01/08/20 Page 3 of 6
4

To establish a claim against a city for failing to supervise, a plaintiff must 

allege “a direct causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged 

constitutional deprivation.” City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 

(1989). As explained by the Eleventh Circuit

To allege a custom or policy giving rise to a substantive-due-process 

violation, a plaintiff must point to either an officially promulgated 

policy or an unofficial custom or practice of the government entity 

shown through the repeated acts of a final policymaker for that entity. 

Grech v. Clayton Cty., 335 F.3d 1326, 1329–30 (11th Cir. 2003). Either 

way, though, a plaintiff “(1) must show that the local governmental 

entity ... has authority and responsibility over the governmental 

function in issue and (2) must identify those officials who speak with 

final policymaking authority for that local governmental entity 

concerning the act alleged to have caused the particular constitutional 

violation in issue.” Id., at 1330. We have noted that a government entity 

almost never will have a formal policy allowing a particular 

constitutional violation. Id. So, usually, a plaintiff must demonstrate 

that the government entity has a custom or practice of allowing the 

particular constitutional violation. Id. To do this, a plaintiff generally 

must show “‘a persistent and widespread practice.’” Church v. City of 

Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1345 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting Depew v. City 

of St. Marys, 787 F.2d 1496, 1499 (11th Cir. 1986)). Indeed, the 

practice must be extensive enough to allow actual or constructive 

knowledge of such customs or policies to be attributed to the governing 

body of the municipality. Id. “Normally random acts or isolated 

incidents are insufficient to establish a custom or policy.” Church, 30 

F.3d at 1345 (quoting Depew v. City of St. Marys, 787 F.2d at 1499).

Daniel v. Hancock County School Dist., 626 F. App’x 825, 832 (11th Cir. 2015). 

Nothing in the plaintiff’s allegations identifies a municipal policy or custom. 

Rather, the plaintiff claims only that, on two occasions, he was wrongfully arrested 

for DUI when he was not intoxicated. The plaintiff asserts the city purchased the 

Case 7:18-cv-02050-LSC-JHE Document 12 Filed 01/08/20 Page 4 of 6
5

bodycams to supervise its officers and therefore the failure to review the bodycam 

footage amounts to a failure to supervise the officers. The problem with this 

argument is that the city’s failure to review the bodycam footage did not cause a 

violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Nothing in the plaintiff’s wholly

conclusory, unsupported statements concerning the purchase of bodycams supports 

a finding that a city decisionmaker knew that City of Decatur police officers needed 

further supervision in arresting suspects, and with that knowledge, failed to 

undertake any training. Rather, the plaintiff’s objection makes clear he seeks to hold 

the city liable “for the wrongful actions of its police officers in making a false arrest.” 

See Gold v. City of Miami, 151 F.3d 1346, 1350 (11th Cir. 1998). Section 1983 does 

not permit such respondeat superior liability. Id. 

Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff’s objection to the conclusion that he 

failed to state a viable claim for municipal liability for failure to supervise is 

overruled. 

Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the 

court file, including the report and recommendation, the plaintiff’s objections are 

OVERRULED. The magistrate judge’s report is hereby ADOPTED and the

recommendation is ACCEPTED. The court ORDERS that the plaintiff’s claims 

against the City of Decatur Police Department, the City of Decatur, and claims based 

on excessive bail are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 

Case 7:18-cv-02050-LSC-JHE Document 12 Filed 01/08/20 Page 5 of 6
6

U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The court further ORDERS that the plaintiff’s claims against 

defendant Derrick Anderson for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment are

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as barred by the statute of limitations. 

The court further ORDERS that the plaintiff’s remaining claims, specifically 

his malicious prosecution claim against Derrick Anderson based on the October 18, 

2016 arrest and later dismissal of that charge, and his wrongful arrest and false 

imprisonment claim against Michael Kent concerning his February 17, 2017 arrest,

are REFERRED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

DONE and ORDERED on January 8, 2020.

_____________________________

L. Scott Coogler

United States District Judge

160704

Case 7:18-cv-02050-LSC-JHE Document 12 Filed 01/08/20 Page 6 of 6