Juan L. Perez v. City of Sweetwater, 18-10498

Background

On Jan. 2, 2012, Miami‑area police stopped a speeding Mercedes (driver Felipe Torrealba). Officers claimed Torrealba produced a handgun, ignored commands, and fled; Torrealba denied having a gun.
During the flight, the Mercedes struck Juan L. Perez’s truck; Perez suffered serious injuries and was hospitalized. Torrealba later pleaded guilty to resisting arrest.
Perez sued the City of Sweetwater under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (1) a municipal custom/policy (relating to towing‑ordinance enforcement and use of deadly force) caused a due‑process violation and (2) the City was deliberately indifferent in training/supervision regarding deadly force and high‑speed pursuits.
A jury found municipal liability and awarded $1,000,000 in compensatory damages; the district court granted the City’s renewed Rule 50(b) motion, entering judgment for the City as a matter of law.
Perez appealed the evidentiary exclusion of portions of 2017 arrest‑warrant affidavits and the Rule 50(b) grant; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the excluded affidavit material was properly excluded and the evidence was legally insufficient to support municipal liability.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of post‑event affidavit allegations	Affidavit excerpts showing multiple officer misconduct incidents would prove a longstanding custom and notice to City	Affidavit sections described dissimilar, post‑event incidents that would unfairly prejudice and confuse the jury	Exclusion affirmed: post‑event incidents were too dissimilar and prejudicial under Rules 401/403
Municipal custom (Monell) liability for conscience‑shocking use of deadly force	City police had a culture of corruption around towing enforcement; that custom motivated or ratified the officers’ conduct causing Perez’s injury	No evidence linking towing enforcement or an established practice to the stop, shooting, or pursuit; no pattern of similar conscience‑shocking incidents	Reversed jury verdict: evidence insufficient to show a longstanding, widespread practice or causal link; judgment for City affirmed
Failure‑to‑train (deliberate indifference)	City failed to train/supervise on deadly force and pursuits; officers were inexperienced/not given SOPs and one had discipline history	Training showed periodic deadly‑force certification; plaintiff’s examples were not similar to alleged constitutional violation and did not put policymakers on notice	Judgment for City affirmed: no pattern or notice showing deliberate indifference in training/supervision
Standard for Rule 50(b) post‑verdict relief	Jury verdict should stand given sympathy for injured bystander and disputed facts (e.g., whether Torrealba had a gun)	Only sufficiency of evidence matters; no reasonable jury could find municipal policy/custom or deliberate indifference based on trial record	Rule 50(b) grant affirmed: viewing evidence in plaintiff’s favor, no reasonable jury could have found for Perez on municipal claims

Key Cases Cited

Lewis v. County of Sacramento, 523 U.S. 833 (1978) (due‑process conscience‑shocking standard)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires injury caused by official policy or custom)
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (failure‑to‑train deliberate‑indifference standard; need for pattern of similar violations)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (municipal liability for failure to train requires deliberate indifference)
Board of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (municipal conduct must be moving force behind injury)
Craig v. Floyd County, 643 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2011) (pattern of similar constitutional violations required to show municipal custom)
Mercado v. City of Orlando, 407 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2005) (similarity requirement for other‑incident evidence)
Am. Fed. of Labor & Cong. of Indus. Orgs. v. City of Miami, 637 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (testing causal link between municipal policy and harm)