Darrell L. Jackson v. Eric L. Capraun
534 F. App'x 854
11th Cir.2013Background
- In 2008 Jackson was stopped in an Orange County, FL bicycle-theft sting after officers (Vidler, Capraun, and an unnamed arresting officer) observed him take a bicycle and rode away on it; Jackson claimed he thought the bike was abandoned.
- Jackson was tackled/off the bike, suffered back pain, and alleges the arresting officer used excessive force; he complained to Capraun about his back but treatment was delayed until booking intake.
- Jackson was charged with grand theft and possession of drug paraphernalia; charges were later dropped (grand theft dismissed; paraphernalia nolle prosequi).
- Jackson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers Vidler and Capraun (false arrest, deliberate indifference), an unnamed Officer Doe (excessive force), Sheriff Kevin Beary and Orange County (policy/custom), and prosecutor Antonio Tapia (malicious prosecution).
- The district court dismissed the third amended complaint: Vidler, Capraun, and Beary on qualified immunity; Doe without prejudice for failure to serve under Rule 4(m); Tapia on prosecutorial immunity; Orange County for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for Vidler & Capraun — false arrest (Fourth Amendment) | Jackson: arrest was false because he believed the bike was abandoned; no probable cause. | Officers: sting conduct was within duty; they had arguable probable cause to arrest for theft under Fla. Stat. § 812.014. | Held: Qualified immunity granted — officers had arguable probable cause. |
| Deliberate indifference — medical care (Fourteenth Amendment) | Jackson: Capraun knew of acute back pain, delayed care, worsened injury by rough transport. | Capraun: delay was brief and treatment occurred at booking; allegations do not show serious medical need or more-than-gross-negligence. | Held: Claim dismissed — Jackson failed to plead a serious medical need or deliberate indifference. |
| Supervisory/municipal liability (Beary / Orange County) | Jackson: Beary designed sting and county tolerated widespread unlawful stings → unconstitutional custom/policy. | Defendants: no underlying constitutional violation shown; supervisors not liable on respondeat superior. | Held: Dismissed — no underlying constitutional violation or adequately pleaded policy/custom claim. |
| Failure to serve unnamed Officer Doe (Rule 4(m)) | Jackson: could not identify Doe despite attempts. | Court: gave extensions, forms, instructions, and warning; no good cause shown for continued failure to serve. | Held: Dismissal without prejudice affirmed as within district court’s discretion. |
| Prosecutorial immunity — Tapia (malicious prosecution) | Jackson: Tapia initiated prosecution maliciously (e.g., insulting email). | Tapia: actions initiating prosecution are protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity. | Held: Dismissed — absolute prosecutorial immunity applies even if initiation was malicious. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fortner v. Thomas, 983 F.2d 1024 (11th Cir. 1993) (standard for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and when affirmative defenses may justify dismissal)
- Harbert Int’l v. James, 157 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 1998) (qualified immunity burden-shifting and discretionary-duty analysis)
- Davis v. Williams, 451 F.3d 759 (11th Cir. 2006) (arguable probable cause standard for false arrest claims)
- Youmans v. Gagnon, 626 F.3d 557 (11th Cir. 2010) (elements of deliberate indifference to serious medical need)
- Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2003) (supervisory liability not based on respondeat superior under § 1983)
- Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll County Com’rs, 476 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2007) (good-cause standard for Rule 4(m) extensions)
- Long v. Satz, 181 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 1999) (absolute immunity for prosecutors and inquiry on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Hart v. Hodges, 587 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2009) (prosecutorial immunity covers initiating prosecution even if malicious)