Page 1 of 3 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LAVAROS DAVIS, 

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv5935-HTC

SGT. DANIELS, et al., 

Defendants.

_________________________/

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause, ECF Doc. 

147, and Defendants’ response in opposition, ECF Doc. 148. After reviewing the 

parties’ submissions, the Court concludes the motion should be denied, as Plaintiff 

has not established civil contempt is appropriate in these circumstances. 

U.S. Magistrate Judge Kahn presided over a settlement conference in this 

prisoner civil rights case on May 23, 2023. ECF Doc. 144. During the settlement 

conference, Judge Kahn advised the three Florida Department of Corrections 

(“FDOC”) transport officers escorting Plaintiff of their obligation to keep all 

discussions at the conference confidential. Several days later, Plaintiff’s counsel 

received a letter from Plaintiff which alleged the FDOC transport officers disclosed

what transpired at the conference to officers at Florida State Prison (“FSP”), who

then threatened and abused Plaintiff. ECF Doc. 147-1. Based on the foregoing, 

Case 3:20-cv-05935-HTC Document 151 Filed 06/16/23 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:20cv5935-HTC

Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an order requiring the transport officers to show 

cause why they should not be held in contempt for violating the confidentiality of 

the settlement conference.

“A party seeking civil contempt bears the initial burden of proving by clear

and convincing evidence that the alleged contemnor has violated an outstanding 

court order.” Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Wellington Precious Metals, 

Inc., 950 F.2d 1525, 1529 (11th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). The Court finds 

Plaintiff has not met this initial burden, as Plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient to 

demonstrate an order to show cause should be issued. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted 

a declaration in support of the motion, but counsel did not personally observe the 

actions of the transport officers; instead, the declaration merely describes the 

accusations contained in the letter Plaintiff sent to counsel. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(c)(4) (“An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion [for 

summary judgment] must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would 

be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to 

testify on the matters stated.”).1

 As such, the accusations relayed by counsel’s 

declaration are inadmissible hearsay, which is insufficient to establish a claim for 

1 When the Court conducts settlement conferences with prisoners, it expects all in attendance will 

protect the confidentiality of the discussions. This expectation is not limited to the parties and 

their counsel, but also to those whose presence is necessary and required for the conference to 

occur. Thus, although the Court finds insufficient evidence to support contempt proceedings, the 

Court will direct the clerk to provide a copy of this Order to the General Counsel for the FDOC

for their situational awareness. 

Case 3:20-cv-05935-HTC Document 151 Filed 06/16/23 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3 

Case No. 3:20cv5935-HTC

civil contempt. See United Physician Grp., LLC v. Leche, 2020 WL 8224927, at *5 

(N.D. Ga. Nov. 9, 2020) (finding declarations containing inadmissible hearsay were 

insufficient to establish a claim for civil contempt). 

Furthermore, civil contempt sanctions are intended to coerce the contemnor 

into compliance with a court order and/or to compensate the complainant for losses 

sustained. Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421, 443 

(1986). Here, however, Plaintiff does not allege the transport officers are continuing

to divulge what occurred at the settlement conference. See FTC v. Leshin, 719 F.3d 

1227, 1231 (11th Cir. 2013) (“A coercive contempt sanction comes with some 

limitations; for instance, once a contemnor’s contumacious conduct has ceased or 

the contempt has been purged, no further sanctions are permissible.”) (citation 

omitted). And the transport officers’ disclosure itself is not alleged to have caused 

any loss to Plaintiff. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause, ECF Doc. 147, is 

DENIED.

2. The clerk shall send a courtesy copy of this Order to the General 

Counsel of the FDOC.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of June, 2023. 

 /s/ Hope Thai Cannon HOPE THAI CANNON

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05935-HTC Document 151 Filed 06/16/23 Page 3 of 3