1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

MARIA DOMINIQUE TURNER

n/k/a MARIA THOMPSON

Plaintiff, 

v. CASE NO.: 5:20-CV-199-MCR-MJF

LOUIS S. ROBERTS, III, Individually, and 

in his Official Capacity as 

Sheriff of Jackson County, Florida, 

and 

ZACHARY WESTER, former Deputy Sheriff, Individually

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IN 

OPPOSITION TO LOUIS S. ROBERTS, III’S MOTION TO DISMISS

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Maria Dominique Turner now known as Maria Thompson 

(hereinafter “Maria Thompson”), for her Response and Supporting Memorandum 

in Opposition to Defendant Louis S. Roberts, III’s Motion to Dismiss, states as 

follows:

I. Introduction

Case 5:20-cv-00199-MCR-MJF Document 23 Filed 10/23/20 Page 1 of 10
2

The pending Motion moves to dismiss the federal claims asserted against 

Sheriff Roberts, individually, on the grounds that (1) Sheriff Roberts cannot be 

vicariously liable for Zachary Wester’s conduct; (2) the Plaintiff “fails to make any 

allegations that would indicate the Sheriff had any personal involvement or 

knowledge in the case involving Plaintiff”; and (3) Sheriff Roberts is entitled to 

qualified immunity because “there are no allegations that would lead a reasonable 

person to believe the Sheriff had any individual involvement in this case.” 

None of the arguments asserted by the Defendant hold water. The vicarious 

liability argument is a red herring – Plaintiff’s federal claims do not assert 

vicarious liability. The alleged pleading deficiency ignores the specific factual 

pleadings in the Complaint. The qualified immunity argument ignores the specific 

factual pleadings and clearly established law regarding supervisory liability. The 

Motion should therefore be denied. 

II. Argument

A. Factual Allegations: 

Defendant’s Motion begins by acknowledging that the factual allegations in 

the Plaintiff’s Complaint must be accepted as true and construed in a light most 

favorable to the Plaintiff. But Defendant then ignores those allegations for the 

duration of the Motion, failing to provide any factual summary to be considered by 

Case 5:20-cv-00199-MCR-MJF Document 23 Filed 10/23/20 Page 2 of 10
3

the Court, and offering no explanation or analysis of any alleged deficiency. For 

purposes of this Motion, the relevant facts are summarized as follows: 

On July 14, 2017, Maria Thompson was illegally pulled over by Zachary 

Wester, who was then a deputy with the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office. [Second 

Amended Complaint, ¶ 9-11]. Zachary Wester had no legal basis for the traffic 

stop. [Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 9-11]. After pulling Maria over, Zachary 

Wester fabricated a basis to detain Maria, falsely claiming he smelled marijuana 

and falsely asserting he had gotten a call regarding same, and falsely claiming that 

her license was suspended. [Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 12-18]. Wester then 

illegally seized and detained Maria by placing her in his car while he unlawfully 

searched her vehicle. [Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 20-24]. During the search 

Wester fabricated evidence against Maria, by falsely claiming to find a “white in 

color crystal substance” which he falsely claimed tested presumptive positive for 

methamphetamine, and by falsely claiming to find a “color Ziploc bag containing a 

green leafy residue” which he falsely claimed had the scent and appearance of 

marijuana. [Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 25-30]. 

None of this was true. There was no crystal substance in Maria’s car, and no 

presumptive positive test. [Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 26-29]. The “crystal 

substance” was planted by Wester, and it did not test presumptive positive for 

anything. [Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 26-29]. There was no bag containing a 

Case 5:20-cv-00199-MCR-MJF Document 23 Filed 10/23/20 Page 3 of 10
4

green leafy substance at all, Wester just made this up. [Second Amended 

Complaint, ¶ 30-31]. 

Based upon this fabricated evidence, Wester arrested Maria and caused 

charges to be brought against her. [Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 32 and 36-37]. 

Maria was unable to make bail for the fabricated charges, so she eventually plead 

no contest to charges she knew were false because it was the only way to get 

released. [Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 44-46]. Maria spent 10 weeks in jail on 

the false charges. [Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 44-46]. A year later, Maria’s 

plea was vacated, and all charges were dismissed because of the fabricated 

evidence. [Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 51-53].

Zachary Wester’s illegal actions towards Maria (pulling her over without a 

lawful basis for the stop, detaining her unlawfully, conducting an illegal search, 

planting false evidence, fabricating tests of that evidence, fabricating claims that 

substances were found, filing false charges, and initiating false prosecutions) were 

not isolated events. [Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 57-58]. Zachary Wester 

committed similar acts against more than 100 other victims whose arrests were 

subsequently determined to be improper. [Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 58]. 

Victims of Zachary Wester’s illegal arrests include April Marie Adkins, Hope 

Adkinson, Derek William Benefield, Benjamin Bowling, Michael Brady, Timothy 

Bruner, Joshua Clenney, James Coffelt, John Coulliette, Justin Caleb Creamer, 

Case 5:20-cv-00199-MCR-MJF Document 23 Filed 10/23/20 Page 4 of 10
5

Tyler Daniels, Cassandra E. Davis, Trevor Day, Richard Driggers, Maurice Elder, 

James Fears, Hansford Griffis, Kimberly Hazelwood, Tyler Land, Christopher 

Marr, Tillmon McCroan, John McCue, Teresa Odom, Cole Padgett, Lora Penn, 

Willie Pippin, John Raines, Lance Sellers, Kenneth Shaw, Jason Sherrod, Donnie 

Shores, Willie Sims, Vicki Stephens, Patrick Themar, Abranda Ward, Darrell 

Watkins, Scotty J. Williams, Monica Willis, and Kimberly Wood. [Second 

Amended Complaint, ¶ 62]. 

Defendant Roberts had subjective knowledge of Zachary Wester’s illegal 

actions. [Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 59–61]. Multiple persons made 

complaints to the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Roberts himself 

regarding Wester’s conduct. [Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 61]. Ed Sorensen, 

Maria Thompson’s former employer, specifically informed the Jackson County 

Sheriff’s Office about Maria Thompson’s false arrest, and Ed was specifically told 

that nothing would be done about it. [Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 47-48]. 

Wester had a substantially higher arrest rate than any other deputy at the Jackson 

County Sheriff’s office, and Sheriff Roberts knew this. [Second Amended 

Complaint, ¶ 59]. Wester’s arrest rate was so inflated that it is not possible that 

Sheriff Roberts could have believed his conduct was legal. [Second Amended 

Complaint, ¶ 60]. 

Case 5:20-cv-00199-MCR-MJF Document 23 Filed 10/23/20 Page 5 of 10
6

Nevertheless, Sheriff Roberts allowed Wester to continue in his unlawful 

actions and intentionally declined to prevent same. [Second Amended Complaint, 

¶ 65, 66, 85, 128, 175, 221, 268, 307, and 351]. 

B. Vicarious Liability

The Plaintiff’s Complaint does not assert vicarious liability against Sheriff 

Roberts in any of the federal causes of action asserted against him in his individual 

capacity. [See Second Amended Complaint, Counts II, V, VIII, XI, XIV, XVII, 

and XX]. Rather, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges individual supervisory liability 

against Sheriff Roberts on the grounds that he had notice of Wester’s unlawful 

conduct and subjective knowledge that same was causing constitutional violations, 

that he failed to correct or prevent Wester’s unlawful conduct, and that this failure 

caused the constitutional violations. [See Second Amended Complaint, Counts II, 

V, VIII, XI, XIV, XVII, and XX]. 

C. Individual Supervisory Liability

The Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a claim against 

Sheriff Roberts, in his individual capacity, for supervisory liability. In the Eleventh 

Circuit a supervisor may be held individually liable for a subordinate’s 

unconstitutional conduct if either (1) the supervisor “directly participated in the 

unconstitutional conduct;” or (2) “a causal connection exists between 

Case 5:20-cv-00199-MCR-MJF Document 23 Filed 10/23/20 Page 6 of 10
7

the supervisor's actions and the alleged constitutional violation.” Keith v. DeKalb

County, Georgia, 749 F.3d 1034, 1047–48 (11th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff asserts the 

latter, that there is a causal connection between Sheriff Robert’s actions and 

Wester’s constitutional violations. [See Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 86, 129, 

176, 222, 269, 308, and 352]. 

The Eleventh Circuit recognizes four ways that a Plaintiff can establish the 

necessary causal connection. First, “when a history of widespread abuse puts the 

responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct the alleged deprivation, and 

he fails to do so.” Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360–61 (11th Cir. 2003). 

Second, when a supervisor's custom or policy “result[s] in deliberate indifference 

to constitutional rights.” Id. Third, when “facts support an inference that 

the supervisor directed the subordinates to act unlawfully. Id. Or fourth, when 

facts support an inference that the supervisor “knew that the subordinates would 

act unlawfully and failed to stop them from doing so.” Id.

The Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges sufficient facts to establish a causal 

connection under three such theories. The Complaint alleges that there was 

widespread and repeated abuse by Wester that put Sheriff Roberts on notice of a 

need to correct the deprivation. The Complaint alleges misconduct that was so 

pervasive as to constitute a custom or policy of the Sheriff’s office. The Complaint 

alleges that Sheriff Roberts had actual notice, through direct complaints, of 

Case 5:20-cv-00199-MCR-MJF Document 23 Filed 10/23/20 Page 7 of 10
8

Wester’s misconduct. And the Complaint alleges sufficient facts to support an 

inference that Sheriff Roberts had knowledge that Wester would act unlawfully, 

even in the absence of direct complaints. Yet Sheriff Roberts did nothing to 

prevent, correct, or stop the misconduct. 

Thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint states a valid claim for supervisory liability and 

the Motion to Dismiss should be denied. 

D. Qualified Immunity

After citing general principals regarding qualified immunity, Defendant’s 

qualified immunity argument states, in its entirety: 

In Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, there are no 

allegations that would lead a reasonable person to believe 

the Sheriff had any individual involvement in this case, 

thus entitling Sheriff, individually, to qualified immunity 

regarding the allegations contained in all counts. 

But as set forth above, Plaintiff’s individual claims are based on the causal 

connection between Sheriff Roberts’ conduct and Wester’s misconduct, not 

Roberts’ direct participation in such conduct. Defendant offers no argument on the 

causal connection of supervisory liability. Defendant does not dispute that such 

liability exists, or that it was clearly established at the time of the violations. 

Because the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to proceed on these claims, the

Motion should be denied. 

Case 5:20-cv-00199-MCR-MJF Document 23 Filed 10/23/20 Page 8 of 10
9

Should the Defendant come forward in a future pleading with specific 

arguments that any of the causal connection theories asserted by Plaintiff are 

invalid, were not clearly established at the time of the violations, or are not

supported by the facts, Plaintiff reserves the right to address those arguments when 

asserted. 

III. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Motion 

to Dismiss should be denied. 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Counsel for the undersigned certifies that this Response was prepared in 

Times New Roman, size 14 font and that it contains 1,784 words.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Ryan Will_______________

J. RYAN WILL 

Florida Bar No. 0024122

Morgan & Morgan, P.A.

444 Seabreeze Boulevard, Suite 100

Daytona Beach, FL 32118

Telephone: (386) 947-9959

Facsimile: (859) 367-6146

Email: rwill@forthepeople.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 5:20-cv-00199-MCR-MJF Document 23 Filed 10/23/20 Page 9 of 10
10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served via the Court’s 

Electronic Filing System on October 23, 2020 to the parties: 

Riley Landy

Joe Longfellow

Andrews, Crabtree, 

Knox & Longfellow, LLP

1558-1 Village Square Blvd.

Tallahassee, FL 32309

rlandy@andrewscrabtree.com

jlongfellow@andrewscrabtree.com

Counsel for Defendant,

Zachary Wester

Alyssa M. Yarbrough

William G. Warner

Warner Law Firm, P.A.

P.O. Box 1820

Panama City, FL 32402

alyssayarbrough@warnerlaw.us

billwarner@warnerlaw.us

Counsel for Defendant,

Louis S. Roberts, III

/s/ J. Ryan Will_______________

J. RYAN WILL

Case 5:20-cv-00199-MCR-MJF Document 23 Filed 10/23/20 Page 10 of 10