FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DEC 22, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 14 32 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 9- 00 18 0- CV-OC-GR J J.D. NETTLES, JR ., Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us CITY OF LEESBURG - POLICE DEPARTMENT, W ILLIAM CHRI SMAN, Ch ie f of Po li ce, SCOTT MACK, Offi cer, A ROMAN, Offic er, FNU HOLTZ CLAW , Offic er, Defen dant s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 22 , 20 10 )
Befo re EDMONDSON, HILL andALARCÓN, Cir cu itJu dg es . *

Honora ble Arthur L . Alarc ón, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing * by designation.ALARCÓN, Circ ui t Jud ge :

J.D. Net tl es Jr. ap pe al s fr om th e o rd er o f th e Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a d is m is si ng with p reju di ce h is Seco ndAm en de d C om pl ai nt pu rs ua ntto Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) of th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e an d fo r fai lu re t o
co m pl y with R ul es 8(a ) an d 1 0( b) of t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e. The Ci ty of Lees bu rg , W il li am Ch ris m an , andSco ttMac k (“ App el le es ”) h av e fi le d a
m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s ag ai ns t Net tl es un de r Ru le 38 of t he Fed eral Ru le s o f App el la te Pro cedur e fo r fi li ng a fri vo lo us ap pe al . W e aff irm th e d is mis sa l o f th is act io n b ecau se we co nc lu de th atNett le s fa il edto st at e a cl ai m up on whi chrel ie f
co ul d b e g ran te d. We als o d eny th e m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s fi le d b y App el le es be cau se we are n otpe rs ua de d t ha t Net tl es ’s app eal was c le arl y fri vo lo us . I On Dec em

be r 22 , 20 08 , Nett le s fi le d aCo m pl ai ntag ai ns t the App el le es in th e Fi fth Ju di ci al Cir cu itinan d fo r Lak e Co un ty, Fl or id a, pu rs ua ntto 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3, the Flo rid a Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act (“ FCRA” ), Fla . Sta t. § 76 0.0 1, et . seq ., and Fl a. St at . § 7 68 .01 et. s eq . On Ja nu ary 20 , 20 09 , App el le es fil eda m ot io n t o di sm is s t hi s ac ti onpu rs ua ntto Ru le s 1 .14 0 a nd1.1 10 (b ) of th e Fl or id a Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e. App el le es ass ert edinth ei r m ot io n t ha t

2[t]he Co m pl ai ntfai ls to st at e a cl ai m up on whi chrel ie f can be gra nt ed un de r an y of the leg al “ th eo rie s” or c on cl us ory st at em en ts of l aw li st edby the Pla in ti ff i n the in de ci ph erab le Co m pl ai nt . In ad di ti on to co nt ai ni ng no th in g m or e th anco nc lu so ry all eg at io ns , th ere a re in su ffi ci en t al le ga ti on s p le d t o g iv e th is Co urt juris di ct io n o ve r th e Defen da nt s, o r ov er the all eg edcla im s. Th ere i s n o b as is forSta te Co urt juris di ct io n u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 ; p ro pe r juri sd ic ti onfor su chcla im s i s Fe de ral Co urt. (Dis tri ctCo urt’s Dkt. No . 1 at17 ). On Ma rch 9, 2 00 9, the st at e co urt d is mis se d Nett le s’s Co m

pl ai ntforfai lu re t o s ta te a cau se of a ct io n a ndga ve Nett le s 2 0 d ay s to fil e anAm en de d C om

pl ai nt . On M arch 20 , 20 09 , Nett le s fi le d a n a m en de d c om pl ai nt . The Am en de d Co m pl ai ntall eg es as f

ol lo ws: 6. OnDecem

be r 2, 2 00 5 Def

en da nt s v io la te d t he pri va cy an d se cu rity of the Pla in ti ffs pro te ct edpro pe rty un de r co lo r of law b y se arch in g t he pl ai nt iff

il le ga ll y , whi chledto th e il le ga l arres t, wh ic h le d t o t he il le ga l d et en ti on an d c on fin em en t o f pl ai nt iff . Plai nt iff was in carc erat edfor2 years a s a r es ul t o f th e fal se arre st . Arres t was ov erturne d o n app eal , do cu m en t at ta ch ed . Sin ce the arre stwas ov erturne d o n app eal , pl ai nt iff ha s b een subjec te d t o s y st em at ic ha ras sm en t. See att ach edco m pl ai ntfil edby Plai nt iff

. This is in acco rd an ce [wi th ] th e p ol ic ie s o r cu st om s o f Lees bu rg Po li ce t o se arch forvi ol at io ns of l aw. 7. Fa il ur e to tra inan d s up erv is e- Defe nd an ts , Leesb ur g P ol ic e Dep art m en t kno ws t o am or al cert ai nt y th atth e in di vi du al Defen da nt s wil l, i n t he co ur se of o ffi ci al du ti es co m e in co nt actwith t he ge ne ral publ ic , andwil l h av e o pp ortu ni ty for the us e an d m is s- us e o f hi s of fic ia l o ffi ce as itrel at es to th e arre strequi rem en ts of t he Fo urth Am en dm en t.

38. Defe nd an t, Lees bu rg Po li ce Dep art m en t h as a m or al an d l eg al

res po ns ib il it y

to tra inan d s up erv is e sa idDefen dant s i n t he pro pe r pe rfo rm an ce o f hi s dut ie s fo r th e p ro te ct io n o f th e Co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s o f th e ci ti zen s wi th who m he m ay co m e in co nt act , andha s fai le d t o d o s o. Defe nd an t, Lees bu rg Po li ce Dep art m en t h as di sp la y edgro ss in di ffer en ce t o t he Co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s o f th e pl ai nt iff an d o th ers infai li ng to pro pe rly trai n a ndsupe rv is e Defen da ntoff

ic ers , with i nd iff

eren ce an d i na ct io n h as ledto th e vi ol at io n o f th e Pl ai nt iff’s Con st itut io na l ri gh ts an d c au se d o th er da m ag es . 9. Itis li ke ly tha t p ro pe r tr ai ni ng an d s up erv is io n c ou ldha ve pr ev en te d t he vi ol at io n o f th e Pl ai nt iff s p ro te ct edrig ht s, an d tha t pr op er trai ni ng an d s up erv is io n i n t he futur e co ul d p rev en t fu rth er si mil ar v io la ti on s. 10 . Int en ti on al in fli ct io n o f em ot io na l d is tre ss , Pla in ti ff h as su ffer ed em ot io na l an gu is h a ndha rm as ares ul t o f th e v io la ti on of h is Co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s u nd er the Fo urth an d F ou rte en th Am en dm en ts to be free fro m

un la wfu l an d u nr eas on ab le sea rch es . Plai nt iff ha s an d st il l i s b ei ng haras se d b y

th e d efen da nt s an d o ffi cers of t he Lees bu rg Po li ce Dep art m en t s ee at ta ch edno ta riz edst at em en t o f co m pl ai nt m ad e to Lees bu rg Po li ce Dep art m en t. 11 . Plai nt iff

is en ti tl edto co m

pe ns at io n u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. 1 98 3 a nd “ The Flo rid a Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 92 ” an d F L Statti tl e XLV Ch ap te r 76 8 Neg li ge nc e fo r th e d am ag es su ffer edas ares ul t o f th e vi ol at io n o f hi s fe de ral ly pro te ct edrig ht s. (Am en de d C om

pl ai ntat 1 -2 ). On Ap ril 27 , 20 09 , App el le es rem ov edth e cas e to th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a. Becaus e App el le es ’ m ot io n t o d is m is s Net tl es ’s Am en de d C om pl ai ntwas p en di ng inth e st at e co urt atth e ti m e o f rem ov al , App el le es fil eda m em or an du m of l aw, cit in g

4Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) of th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e, in supp ort o f th ei r m ot io n to di sm is s t he Am en de d C om pl ai ntinth e Dis tri ctCo urt o n M ay 7, 2 00 9. App el le es arg ue d t ha t [t]he all eg at io ns co nt ai ne d i n t he Am en de d C om pl ai ntare v ag ue an d co nc lu so ry , andren de r itdi ffi cu lt , if n otim po ss ib le to de te rm in e wha t cl ai m s Pl ai nt iff

is att em pt in g t o p le ad . The Am en de d C om pl ai ntas dr aft edm ak es itpa rti cu la rly dif fic ul t t o d et erm in e wha t cl ai m s ar e be in g a ll eg edag ai ns t the Ind iv idua l Def en da nt s. [] The Am en de d Co m pl ai ntas d raft edm ak es itim po ss ib le foran y

Defen da ntto ap pr op ria te ly resp on d t o the all eg at io ns rai se d. (Dis tri ctCo urt’s Dkt. No . 8 at2). OnJu ne 2, 2 00 9, Net tl es fil eda res po ns e to App el le es ’ m ot io n t o d is m is s t he Am en de d C om pl ai nt . In i t, Net tl es m ai nt ai ne d

1 th at“ th e v ery fir stpa rag rap h o f th e Am en de d C om pl ai ntco nt ai ns th e cau se s o f act io ns .” The fi rs t p arag rap h re ad s as fol lo ws: “ Pl ai nt iff , th ro ug h t he un de rs ig ne d at to rn ey be in g dul y

swo rnfil es th is co m

pl ai ntforWro ng fu l Arre stan d Det en ti on , Neg li ge nc e, an d In te nt io na l In fli ct io n o f em ot io na l d is tre ss .” On J un e 3 , 20 09 , th e Dis tri ctCo urt g ran te d Ap pe ll ees ’ m ot io n t o d is mis s Net tl es ’s Am en de d Co m pl ai nt . It ru le d t ha t “ th e am en de d c om pl ai ntdi d n otco m

pl y with F ed eral

On the same date, Ne ttles filed a motion for summary judgme nt. He asse rted that 1 Appellee s failed to dispute “a ny of the fa cts in this case in their r esponses” to Nettles’s Amende d Complaint. On J une 3, 2009, the District Court denie d Nettles’s motion for summary judgme nt as pre mature. The District Court expl ained that Appe llees “ha ve not yet bee n require d to file an answe r to [Nettles’s] C omplaint or Amended Complaint, and ther efor e it is not possi ble at this time to determine what fac ts, if any , arein dispute. See Fe d. R. Civ. 12(a)(4), (b).” 5Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e 8 (a) o r 10 (b ).” The Di st ric t Co urt g av e Net tl es 20 da y s 2 to fil e a Sec on d Am en de d C om pl ai nt . On J un e 2 2, 2 00 9, Net tl es fil eda Seco ndAm en de d C om pl ai nt . The Se co nd Am en de d C om

pl ai ntall eg es th at On Dec em

be r 2, 2 00 5 [Ap pe ll ees ] vi ol at edth e p riv acy andsec ur it y of Pl ai nt iff’s pro te ct edpro pe rty un de r co lo r of law b y sea rch in g t he pl ai nt iff il le ga ll y , whi chledto th e il le ga l arres t, wh ic h l edto th e il le ga l d et en ti on an d c on fin em en t o f pl ai nt iff . Plai nt iff was in carc erat edfor2 years a s a r es ul t o f th e fal se arre st . Arres t was ov erturne d o n app eal , do cu m en t at ta ch ed . Sin ce the arre stwas ov erturne d o n app eal , pl ai nt iff ha s b een subjec te d t o s y st em at ic ha ras sm en t. See att ach edco m pl ai ntfil edby Plai nt iff

. This is in acco rd an ce [wi th ] th e p ol ic ie s o r cu st om s o f Lees bu rg Po li ce t o se arch forvi ol at io ns of l aw. (Sec on d Am en de d C om

pl ai ntat 5 ). On J un e 2 6, 2 00 9, Ap pe ll ees fil eda m ot io n t o di sm is s t he Seco ndAm en de d C om pl ai ntpu rs uantto Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) in whi chth ey arg ue d t ha t [t]he Seco ndAm en de d C om pl ai ntis pra ct ic al ly ide nt ic al to th e or ig in al Co m

pl ai ntan d c on ta in s t he same ple ad in gs de fic ie nc ie s. Th e Seco ndAm en de d C om

pl ai ntas awho le is no th in g m or e th ana ho dg ep od ge of p ur

po rte d s ta te m en ts of l aw an d c on cl us ory al le ga ti on s. Th e Sec on d Am en de d C om pl ai ntco nt ai ns in su ffi ci en t factua l al le ga ti on s t o s ta te a cl ai m un de r an y

th eo ry .
Rule 12(a) (4) pr ovides that the re quirement in Rule 12(a )(1) (A) that a def endant must 2 serve an answ er w ithin 21 day s after beingserve d with the summons and complaint is altered if a 12(b)( 6) motion is filed. Rule 12(b)(6) pr ovides that a pa rty may asser t the “fa ilure to state a claim upon which r elief c an be grante d” by motion. 6(Dis tri ctCo urt’s Dkt. No . 16 at 1 ). Nett le s d idno t fi le a res po ns e to th e m ot io n t o

di sm is s h is Seco ndAm en de d C om pl ai nt . On J ul y 22 , 20 09 , th e Dis tri ctCo urt d is m is se d Net tl es ’s Seco ndAm en de d Co m pl ai ntwith p reju di ce. Itreas on edas f ol lo ws: A rev ie w of t he Seco ndAm en de d C om pl ai ntde m on st rat es th atitst il l fal ls sh ort o f th e requi rem en ts of Rul es 8(a ) an d 1 0( b) . Oth er tha n rem ov in g s ev eral pa rag rap hs , th e Sec on d Am en de d C om pl ai ntis a ve rb at im reci ta ti on of t he pri oram en de d c om pl ai nt , anddo es no t pr ov id e an y

gu id an ce as to th e le ga l the or ie s upo n wh ic h re li ef i s so ug ht , no r the fa ct ua l b as is fo r a nyof his r eq uest

s f or rel ie f. (em ph as is ad de d) . The d is tri ctco urt al so st at ed : [Net tl es ] ha s n ow b eengi ve n t hr ee o pp ortu ni ti es to fil e a co m pl ai nt whi chco m

pl ie s wi th th e ap pl ic ab le pl ead in g ru le s. In each in st an ce, th e p la in ti ff h as subm it te d a lm os t anid en ti cal do cu m en t wi th no at te m ptto co rrec t an y

de fic ie nc ie s. Pro vi di ng any furth er ch an ces to am en d wo ul d t he refo re b e fu ti le an d awast e o f at to rn ey an d C ou rt res ou rces . . . . Mo reo ve r, [Net tl es ] ha s fa il edto res po ndto th e [ap pe ll ees ’] lat es t m ot io n t o d is m is s, wh ic h the Co urt i nt erp ret s as acqui es cen ce i n d is mis sa l o f th is cas e. (Dis tri ctCo urt’s o rd er o f Ju ly 22, 2 00 9 a t 2 ). Nett le s d idno t fi le a m ot io n fo r
reco ns id erat io n o f th e o rd er d is m is si ng th e Sec on d Am en de d C om pl ai nt , no r di d he reque stth atth e d is m is sa l s ho ul d b e wit ho utpre jud ic e. Nett le s fi le d ati m el y

no ti ce o f ap pe al . This Co urt h as ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1. II
7A

Nett le s co nt en ds th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt erredindi sm is si ng hi s Se co nd Am en de d C om

pl ai ntfor fai lu re t o s ta te su ffi ci en t fa ct s t o s ta te a cau se of a ct io n be cau se “ a p ers on of a ve rag e in te ll ig en ce ca n u nd ers tandth e p le ad in gs th atth e [d is tri ctco urt] reject ed .” (App el la nt ’s Br. at15 ). Nett le s ar gu es th at [h e] des erv es hi s d ay

inco urt an d d es erv es civ il da m ag es in acco rd an ce wi th th e in

juri es he su st ai ne d [f

or ] wro ng fu l arres t, i ll eg al de te nt io n, n eg li ge nc e, an d i nt en ti on al in fli ct io n o f em ot io na l d is tre ss he su st ai ne d fr om

th e [ap pe ll ees ] si m

pl y be cau se [he ] ha s a c riminal ba ck gr ou nddo es no t fo rfei t h is civ il rig ht s an d h is redres s o f in juri es . (Idat 1 5- 16 ). Nett le s as se rts th at“ [t]o d is m is s a c om pl ai ntbe cau se of t he word in g of th e co m pl ai ntis tan ta m ou ntto a m ere g es tu re o f du e p ro ces s. In ord er t o a ffo rd [h im ] with a t l eas t a m eas ur e o f fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s h e d es erv es anop po rtu ni ty to be he ard .” (Id . at 1 9)
.

“ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt o rd er g ran ti ng a m ot io n t o d is m is s de no vo , ap pl y in g t he same stand ardas t he di st ric t co urt.” Ran da ll v. Sc ot t , 61 0 F .3d70 1, 70 5 (1 1th C ir. 2 01 0) (ci ti ng Hof fma n- Pugh v . Rams ey , 31 2 F .3d12 22 , 12 25 (11 th Ci r. 20 02 )). “ W e th eref

or e acc ep t as tru e th e fac ts as s etforthinth e co m pl ai nt
an d d raw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es inth e p la in ti ff’s fav or .” Id

. (ci ti ng W il so n v . Stro ng , 15 6 F .3d11 31 , 11 33 (11 th Cir . 19 98 )).

8“ Gen eral ly, un de r th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e, a co m pl ai ntne ed
on ly con ta in ‘ a sh ort an d p la in st at em en t o f th e cl ai m sh owi ng th atth e p le ad er i s
en ti tl edto rel ie f.’” Id

. (ci ti ng Fed .R.Ci v.P . 8(a )(2 )). “ To s urvi ve a 12 (b )(6 )
m ot io n t o d is m is s, the co m pl ai nt‘ do es no t n eedde ta il edfactua l al le ga ti on s,’ Id

. (quo ti ng Bell

Atlan ti c Co rp . v. Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. 5 44 , 55 5 (2 00 7) ), bu t m us t ‘giv e th e d efen da ntfai r no ti ce o f wha t the pl ai nt iff’s cla im is an d the gro un ds up on whi chitres ts .’ ” Id

. (qu ot in g Co nl ey v. Gi bs on , 35 5 U.S. 4 1, 4 7 (1 95 7) ). In Two mbl

y , th e Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d tha t Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 8 (a)( 2) requi res on ly “ a sh ort an d pl ai n s ta te m en t o f th e cl ai m sh owi ng th atth e p le ad er i s en ti tl edto rel ie f,” i n o rd er t o “ gi ve th e d efen da ntfai r no ti ce o f wha t the
. . . . cl ai m is an d the gro un ds up on whi chitres ts ,” Co nl ey v. Gi bs on , 35 5 U.S. 41 , 47 , 78 S.Ct . 99 , 2 L.Ed.2 d 8 0 (1 95 7) . W hi le a co m

pl ai nt at ta ck edby a Rul e 1 2( b) (6 ) m ot io n t o d is m is s d oe s n otne edde ta il ed factua l al le ga ti on s, i bi d. ; Sa nj ua n v . Ameri ca n Bd. of Psyc hi atryan d Neu ro lo gy, Inc
. , 40 F.3d24 7, 2 51 (C.A.7 1 99 4) , a pl ai nt iff’s ob li ga ti on to pro vi de th e “ gr ou nd s” of h is “ en ti tl e[m en t] to rel ie f” requi res m or e th anlab el s an d c on cl us io ns , anda fo rm ul ai c rec it at io n of th e el em en ts of acau se of a ct io n wi ll no t d o, se e Pap as an v. Allai n , 47 8 U.S. 2 65 , 28 6, 1 06 S.Ct . 29 32 , 92 L.Ed.2d20 9 (1 98 6) (on a m ot io n t o d is m is s, co urts “ are n otbo un d t o a ccep t as tru e a l eg al co nc lu si on co uc he d a s a f actua l al le ga ti on ”). Fac tu al all eg at io ns m us t b e en ou gh to rai se a ri gh t t o re li ef ab ov e th e sp ecu la ti ve lev el , se e 5 C. Wrig ht& A. Mil le r, Fed eral Prac ti ce an d P ro cedur e § 12 16 , pp . 23 5- 23 6 (3 d e d. 2 00 4) [] (“ [T]he p le ad in g m us t co nt ai n s om ethi ng m or e . . . tha n . . . a st at em en t o f fact s t ha t m erel y crea te s a s us pi ci on [o f] a leg al ly cog ni zab le rig htof a ct io n” ), on[th e as su m pt io n t ha t al l th e] all eg at io ns inth e co m pl ai ntare tru e (ev enif d oubt fu l i n fa ct ) . . .

. 9Two mbl

y, 55 0 U.S. at55 5 (f

oo tn ot e o m it te d)
. App el le es co nt en d i n t he ir r es po ns iv e b rie f th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt d idno t err in di sm is si ng th e Sec on d Am en de d C om pl ai ntwith p reju di ce b ecau se Nett le s fai le d t o m eet“ th e h ei gh te ne d p le ad in g re qu ire m en ts un de r th e Ele ve nth C irc ui t
un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 . . . .” (App el le es ’ Br. at5). Ho wev er, as th is Co urt
ex pl ai ne d i n Ran da ll

, a he ig ht en edpl ead in g s ta nd ardfor§ 1 98 3 c as es in vo lv in g qu al ifi edimm

un it y was o ve rru le d b y

th e Supr em e Co urt i n Ash cr of t v. Iq ba l , 12 9 S.Ct . 19 37 (20 09 )

. Ran da ll , 61 0 F .3dat 7 05
. In Ran da ll , th is Co urt ex pl ai ne d: 3 Ove r two de cad es ag o, “ in aneffo rt t o e li m in at e n on m eri to rio us cl ai m s o n t he pl ead in gs an d t o p ro te ctpubl ic off ic ia ls fro m

pro tra ct ed li ti ga ti on in vo lv in g s pe ci ou s cl ai m s, we, an d o th er co urts . . . ti gh te ne d t he ap pl ic at io n o f Ru le 8 t o § 19 83 cas es .” Arn old v . Bd. of Edu c. of Esca mbi a C

ou nt y , 88 0 F .2d30 5, 3 09 (11 thCir . 19 89 ). Und er thi s h ei gh te ne d p le ad in g s ta nd ard , pl ai nt iff s wer e requi redto pr ov id e “ so m e fac tu al de ta il ” in ad di ti on to pl ai n s ta te m en ts sh owi ng th atth ey were en ti tl edto rel ie f. Ola de in de v. Cit y o f Bi rmi ngha m , 96 3 F .2d14 81 , 14 85 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ). W e fo un d s uc h a dd it io na l factua l d et ai l u se fu l i n § 19 83 cas es inord er t o m ak e qua li fie d imm un it y de te rm in at io ns at t he m ot io n t o d is m is s s ta ge an d t o pr ev en t p ub li c o ffi ci al s fr om en du rin g u nn eces sa ry

di sc ov ery.
Appellee s’ re sponsive brief in this appe al was f iled on Fe bruar

y 26, 2010. Randall

was 3 decide d by

this Court on J une 30, 2010. Thus, the District Court wa s require d to follow the law of this Circuit that impos ed a he ighte ned plea ding sta ndard when it dismiss ed this action for failure to comply

with Rule 8(a)( 2) on Jul y 22, 2009. See M

cGinley v. Houston , 361 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2004) (unde r the princ iple of stare decisis, “[a] circuit court’s de cision binds the district courts sitting within its jurisdi ction while a de cision by the Supreme Court binds all circ uit and district courts.”)
. 10Id

. Howev er, “ [a]fter Iq ba l itis cle ar tha t the re i s n o ‘he ig ht en edpl ead in g st an da rd ’ as itrel at es to cas es go ve rn edby Rul e 8 (a)( 2) , in cl ud in g c iv il rig ht s
co m pl ai nt s.” Id

. at71 0. Th eref or e, th is Co urt m

us t re ject Ap pe ll ees ’ arg um en t th atwe m us t ap pl y a he ig ht en edpl ead in g s ta nd ardinrev ie win g t he m eri ts of Nett le s’s co nt en ti on s. Th e Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d i n Iq ba l th at th e p le ad in g s ta nd ardRu le 8 an no un ces do es no t re qu ire “ de ta il ed factua l al le ga ti on s,” b utitde m an ds m or e th ananun ad orne d, the
de fen da nt -u nl awfu ll y -h arm ed -m e acc us at io n. [ Two mbl y, 55 0 U.S.] at 55 5 [] (ci ti ng Pap as an [ , ] 47 8 U.S. [a t] 28 6, [] (19 86 )). A pl ead in g th atoff ers ‘ labe ls an d c on cl us io ns ” o r “ fo rm ul ai c rec it at io n o f th e el em en ts of acau se of a ct io n wi ll no t d o.” [ Two mbl y, ] at55 5 []. Nor do es a co m

pl ai ntsu ffi ce i f itten de rs “ nake d a ss ert io n[ s]’ de vo idof ‘furthe r fac tu al en ha nc em en t.” Id

. , 55 7 []. Iq ba l , 12 9 S .Ct. at19 49
. Nett le s’s Se co ndAm en de d C om pl ai ntall eg es th atApp el le es are re sp on si bl e fo r in juri es he su st ai ne d b ecau se th ey “ vi ol at edth e p riv acy andsec ur it y of Pl ai nt iff’s pro te ct edpro pe rty un de r co lo r of law b y sea rch in g t he pl ai nt iff il le ga ll y , whi chledto th e il le ga l arres t, wh ic h l edto th e il le ga l d et en ti on an d
co nf in em en t o f pl ai nt iff

.” Nett le s fa il edto all eg e fac ts th atsupp orte d h is leg al
co nt en ti on s t ha t h e was il le ga ll y sea rch edan d fa ls el y

arre st ed , as wel l as il le ga ll y de ta in edan d c on fin ed
.

11The Dis tri ctCo urt d idno t err in di sm is si ng th e Sec on d Am en de d C om pl ai nt be cau se Nett le s fa il edto “pr ov id e an y gu id an ce as to th e le ga l the or ie s upo n whi chrel ie f is so ug ht , no r th e fac tu al ba si s fo r an y of h is reque st s fo r rel ie f.” (Dis tri ctCo urt’s Ord er o f Ju ly 22, 2 00 9 a t 2 ). B Nett le s al so cla im s tha t the Cit y of Lee sb ur g P ol ic e Dep art m en t i s l iabl e fo r fai li ng to “ tra in an d s up erv is e” the in di vi du al de fen da nt s. “ [T]o su st ai n a19 83 act io n, a p la in ti ff m

us t m ak e a p rima facie sh owi ng th atth e actor o m is si onof a pe rs on act in g u nd er co lo r of st at e la w dep riv edpl ai nt iff of arig ht , pri vi le ge , or imm un it y sec ur edby the Co ns ti tu ti on or l aws of t he Uni te d S ta te s.” Ca nn on v. Ta yl or , 78 2 F .2d94 7, 9 49 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ) (ci ti ng Par ra tt v. Ta yl or , 45 1 U.S. 5 27 , 53 5 (1 98 1) ). “ Altho ug h t he Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth atco un ti es (an d o th er l oc al go ve rn m en t en ti ti es ) are “pe rs on s” withi n t he sco pe of § 19 83 , andsubjec t t o li ab il it y , [ap pe ll an t] can no t re ly upo n t he th eo ry of resp on de at

su pe ri or to ho ld[a go ve rn m en t en ti ty] li ab le .” McDo wel l v. Br ow n , 39 2 F .3d12 83 , 12 89 (11 th Cir
. 20 04 ) (ci ti ng Mon el l v. Dep ’t o f S oc . Ser vs . of

Cit y o f Ne w Y ork, 43 6 U.S. 6 58 , 69 0 (1 97 8) ).

“ ‘It is on ly whe n t he ‘ ex ecu ti on of t he go ve rn m en t’s p ol ic y or c us to m in fli ct s t he in

jury’ th atth e m

un ic ip al it y

m ay be he ldli ab le .’ ” Id

. (ci ti ng Ci tyof
12Ca nt on v. Har ris , 48 9 U.S. 3 78 , 38 5 (1 98 9) ). “ A [ci ty] do es no t i nc ur§ 1 98 3

li ab il it y for in juri es cau se d s ol el y

by its em pl oyees.” Id

. (ci ti ng Mon el l , 43 6 U.S. at69 4) . “ Nordo es th e fac t tha t a p la in ti ff h as su ffer eda de pr iv at io n o f fed eral rig ht s atth e h an ds of am un ic ip al em

pl oyee in fer m

un ic ip al cu lp ab il it y .” Id

. (ci ti ng Bd. o

f Co un tyCo m’rs v. Bro wn , 52 0 U.S. 3 97 , 40 3 (1 99 7) ). “ In st ead , to im po se § 1 98 3 l iabi li ty on am un ic ip al it y , a pl ai nt iff

m us t s ho w: (1 ) th athi s
co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s wer e v io la te d; (2) th atth e m un ic ip al it y

ha d acu st om

or po li cy th atco ns ti tu te d d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce t o t ha t co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht ; an d (3 ) th atth e p ol ic y

or c us to m

cau se d t he vi ol at io n.” Id

. (ci ti ng Ca nt on , 48 9 U.S. at 38 8)
. Nett le s’s Se co ndAm en de d C om pl ai ntdo es no t al le ge su ffi ci en t “ factua l
co nt en t tha t al lo ws the co urt t o d raw the reas on ab le in fere nc e” tha t the Cit y of Lees bu rg Po li ce Dep art m en t i s l iabl e fo r an y m is co nduc t u nd er § 19 83
. Iq ba l , 12 9 S.Ct . at 1 94 9. Net tl es ’s leg al co nc lu si on s o f § 1 98 3 l iabi li ty by an y of t he App el le es are n otsupp orte d b y factua l al le ga ti on s. III Nett le s’s Se co ndAm en de d C om pl ai ntals o a ll eg es st at e la w cla im s fo r
ne gl ig en ce an d i nt en ti on al in fli ct io n o f em ot io na l d is tre ss . “ [T]o st at e a cl ai m for
ne gl ig en ce u nd er Fl or id a la w, a pl ai nt iff m us t al le ge th atth e [Ap pe ll ees ] owe d t he
13pl ai nt iff

a du ty of care , th at[App el le es ] br each edth atdu ty, an d t ha t the bre ach
cau se d p la in ti ff t o s uf

fer d am ag es .” Lewis v. Cit y o f St. Pet er

sb ur g , 26 0 F .3d 12 60 , 12 62 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). To s ta te a cl ai m forin te nt io na l i nf

li ct io n o f
em ot io na l d is tre ss , a pl ai nt iff m us t s ho w: “ (1 ) de li be rat e o r rec kl es s i nf li ct io n o f
m en ta l s uf

feri ng ; (2 ) ou tra ge ou s co nduc t; (3) th e co nduc t caus edth e em ot io na l di st res s; an d (4 ) th e d is tre ss was s ev ere.” Har t v. Un it ed Stat es , 89 4 F .2d15 39 , 15 48 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). Nett le s’s Se co ndAm en de d C om pl ai ntlac ks an y

factua l al le ga ti on s t o s up po rt h is cla im forne gl ig en ce o r in te nt io na l i nf li ct io n o f
em ot io na l d is tre ss . The s ta te law cl ai m s al le ge d i n h is Seco ndAm en de d Co m pl ai ntco nt ai n s ol el y

leg al co nc lu si on s. Th ey do no t co m

pl y with t he pl ead in g re qu ire m en ts setforth in Iq ba l. The Dis tri ctCo urt d idno t err in
co nc lu di ng th atNett le s fa il edto all eg e su ffi ci en t fa ct s re ga rd in g h is st at e la w cl ai m s upo n wh ic h re li ef co ul d b e g ran te d. IV App el le es fil eda m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s ag ai ns t Net tl es inth is Co urt p ur su an t to Ru le 38 of the Fed eral Ru le s o f App el la te Pro cedur e fo r fi li ng th is ap pe al . In th ei r Ru le 38 m ot io n, Ap pe ll ees arg ue th atth e “ [b ]rief fi le d b y Nett le s i n t he in st an t ca se is fri vo lo us inna tu re an d s et s fo rth no lo gi cal or l eg al ba si s fo r rel ie f fro m th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s J ud gm en t.” (Ap pe ll ees ’ m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s at8).
14Ru le 38 pro vi de s tha t: “ [i]f a co urt o f ap pe al s d et erm in es th atanap pe al is

fri vo lo us , itm ay , af

te r s ep ar at el

y fi le d mo ti on or n ot ic e fro m th e co urt an d
reas on ab le op po rtu ni ty to re sp on d, awa rdjus t d am ag es an d s in gl e o r do ub le co st s to th e ap pe ll ee.” Fe d. R. Ap p. P. 3 8 (e m ph as is ad de d) . “ ‘Rul e 3 8 s an ct io ns ha ve be enim po se d a ga in stap pe ll an ts who rai se ‘ cl earl y fri vo lo us cla im s’ inth e fac e o f
es tabl is he d l aw an d c le ar fa ct s.’” Far es e v. S ch er er , 34 2 F .3d12 23 , 12 32 (11 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (quo ti ng Mis ab ec Mer ca nt il e, In c. de Pan ama v. Don alds on , Luf ki n & Jen re tt e ACLI Fu tu res, In c. , 85 3 F .2d83 4, 8 41 (11 th Cir . 19 88 )). Fo r pu rp os es of Ru le 38 san ct io ns , a cla im is fri vo lo us if i t i s “ ut te rly dev oi d o f m eri t.” Bon fi gl io v. Nuge nt , 98 6 F .2d13 91 , 13 93 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). As d is cu ss edab ov e, we ha ve co nc lu de d t ha t the Dis tri ctCo urt d idno t err in de te rm in in g t ha t Net tl es ’s cou ns el fai le d t o c om pl y with t he requi rem en ts for pl ead in g c la im s upo n wh ic h re li ef ca n b e g ran te d p ur su an t t o R ul e 1 2( b) (6 ). Howev er, we are als o m in df ul of the factth atth e la w reg ard in g the requi rem en ts of Ru le 8 o f th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e in § 1 98 3 c as es was s ti ll
ev ol vi ng an d u ns et tl edat t he ti m e th e p art ie s fi le d t he ir b rie fs inth is Co urt. Pri or to Ju ne 30 , 20 10 , “ in aneffo rt t o e li m in at e n on m eri to rio us cla im s o n t he pl ead in gs
an d t o p ro te ctpubl ic off

ic ia ls fro m

pro tra ct edli ti ga ti on in vo lv in g s pe ci ou s cl ai m s, we, an d o th er co urts . . . ti gh te ne d t he ap pl ic at io n o f Ru le 8 t o § 19 83 cas es .”
15Ran da ll , 61 0 F .3dat 7 05 (qu ot in g Arn old , 88 0 F .2dat 3 09 ). “ Und er thi s

he ig ht en edpl ead in g s tand ard , pl ai nt iff s wer e requi redto pro vi de ‘ so m e fac tu al de ta il ’ in ad di ti on to pl ai n s ta te m en ts sh owi ng th atth ey were en ti tl edto rel ie f.” Id

. (qu ot in g Ola de in de , 96 3 F .2dat 1 48 5) . In the ir m ot io n fo r Ru le 38 san ct io ns , App el le es rel ie d, i n p art , ona he ig ht en edpl ead in g s ta nd ardth atis no lo ng er g oo d la w. Whi le we ha ve de te rm in edth atNett le s h as fai le d t o d em on st rat e th athe pl ed
su ffi ci en t fa ct s t o s ta te a cl ai m up on whi chrel ie f can be gra nt ed , pu rs uantto Iq ba l
an d Ran da ll , we are n otpe rs ua de d t ha t h is ap pe al is cle arl y fri vo lo us inli gh t o f th is Cir cu it ’s recen t re

jecti on of t he he ig ht en edpl ead in g s ta nd ard . On th e d at e it
or de redth e d is m is sa l o f th is act io n fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m up on whi chrel ie f
co ul d b e g ran te d, the Dis tri ctCo urt was requi redto de te rm in e whe th er the Seco nd Am en de d C om

pl ai ntm eta he ig ht en edpl ead in g s ta nd ard . As th is Co urt ex pl ai ne d in Ran da ll , aft er the no ti ce o f ap pe al was fi le d, ad he ren ce t o t ha t s ta nd ardis
erro ne ou s. 4

As noted above , afte r Appe llees filed their motion for Rule 38 sanctions, this Court held 4 that the heightened plea ding sta ndard w as no long er g ood law. We re gret that c ounsel for Appellee s failed to file a

letter pursua

nt to Rul e 28(j) of

the Fe dera l Rules of Appellate Proc edure notifying us that, in dism issing Ne ttles’s Second Amende d Complaint, the District Court applied a heightened plea ding sta ndard that was subseque ntly reje cted by

this Court. Assum ing that Appellee s failed to advise this Court that they had cited pr ece dent in their re sponsive brief tha t had bee n overr

uled bec ause the y

failed to discove r this in preparing f or ora l arg

ument, this omission has caused this Court to ex pend pre cious time and ef fort to lear

n that at least some of Appellee s’ leg al contentions ar e contr ary to the law of this Circuit. 16CONCLUSION

The Dis tri ctCo urt d idno t err in di sm is si ng th is act io n wi th pre jud ic e. Nett le s was gi ve n t hr ee o pp ortu ni ti es to fil e a co m pl ai ntth atco m

pl ie d wi th th e ap pl ic ab le pl ead in g re qu ire m en ts of Rul e 8 . His a m en dm en ts fai le d t o c orrectth e de fic ie nc ie s i n h is Co m

pl ai nt . Nett le s’s Se co ndAm en de d C om pl ai ntdo es no t
co nt ai n “ su ffi ci en t fa ctua l m at te r, acce pt edas t ru e, to st at e a cl ai m to rel ie f th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face .” Iqb al , 12 9 S .Ct. at19 49 . Furt he rm or e, Nett le s d idno t
res po ndto th e App el le es ’ la stm ot io n t o d is m is s n ordi d h e o bjec t t o t he Dis tri ct Co urt’s d is m is sa l. Net tl es di d n otfil e a m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n n ordi d h e reque stlea ve fro m

th e Dis tri ctCo urt t o a m en d h is Co m pl ai nt . This Co urt h as he ld th ata “ di st ric t co urt i s n otrequi redto gra nta pl ai nt iff lea ve to am en d h is
co m pl ai nt su a s

po nt e when th e p la in ti ff, who is rep res en te d b y co un se l, n ev er fil eda m ot io n t o a m en d n orreque st edlea ve to am en d b efo re the di st ric t co urt.” W agne r v. Da ewo o Hea vy In du s. Am. Co rp . , 31 4 F .3d54 1, 5 42 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). W e AFFIR M the Dis tri ctCo urt’s jud gm en t an d DENY App el le es ’ m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s.

17