Court Opinion

ID: 9385868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-10 16:01:05.832287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:53.165763
License: Public Domain

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                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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.