Titus Dixon v. Russ Gibson
20-11372
| 11th Cir. | Feb 8, 2021Background:
- Titus Dixon, an OCSO deputy for nine years with generally positive reviews, was investigated by the IRS and placed on administrative leave in late 2013–early 2014.
- After a separate internal probe, Dixon signed a May 2014 Notice of Disciplinary Action (NDA) acknowledging his right to appeal discipline; in September 2014 a federal grand jury indicted him on tax-fraud–related charges and OCSO officials orally terminated him (Dixon disputes receiving an NDA at termination).
- Dixon was arrested immediately after termination and ultimately acquitted of all federal charges.
- Dixon sued Sheriff Russell Gibson in his official capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging racial discrimination under § 1981 and deprivation of procedural due process.
- Florida law grants career-service deputies an appeal to a career-service appeals board (CSAB) that may sustain, reverse, or modify disciplinary actions; the sheriff argued CSAB review precludes his status as a "final policymaker."
- At summary judgment, Gibson produced CSAB decisions showing reversals/modifications; Dixon offered unsworn declarations claiming CSAB members were sometimes outvoted and that he lacked notice of appeal at termination; the district court and this Court found no genuine dispute and affirmed summary judgment for Gibson.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice of appellate right to CSAB | Dixon: he was not given an NDA at termination and thus lacked notice within the appeal window | Gibson: Dixon signed an NDA in May and statutory appeal rights under Florida law provide notice | Held: No genuine dispute — prior NDA and statutory scheme gave Dixon notice |
| Meaningfulness of CSAB review (rubber-stamp claim) | Dixon: unsworn declarations show CSAB merely "rubber stamps" sheriff decisions | Gibson: CSAB records show the board has reversed/modified sheriff decisions; Dixon's evidence is conclusory/insufficient | Held: Dixon's evidence is non‑probative; record shows CSAB provides meaningful review |
| Final policymaker for § 1983 official-capacity liability | Dixon: sheriff may be liable if he was final policymaker for terminations | Gibson: CSAB review prevents the sheriff from being a final policymaker | Held: Sheriff was not final policymaker; official-capacity liability fails |
Key Cases Cited:
- Melton v. Abston, 841 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir. 2016) (summary-judgment standard and inference drawing)
- Cordoba v. Dillard's, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2005) (speculation and conclusory allegations insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Cook ex rel. Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe Cty., Fla., 402 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 2005) (official-capacity suit is suit against the government entity)
- Scala v. City of Winter Park, 116 F.3d 1396 (11th Cir. 1997) (final policymaker inquiry and meaningful administrative review doctrine)
- Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires an official policy causing the constitutional tort)
- Morro v. City of Birmingham, 117 F.3d 508 (11th Cir. 1997) (existence of a reviewing body can defeat final policymaker status)
- Quinn v. Monroe Cty., 330 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2003) (plaintiff must show defective procedures, rubber-stamping, or ratification to defeat review's meaningfulness)
- Grayden v. Rhodes, 345 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2003) (publicly available statutes can furnish notice of procedural rights)
- Evers v. Gen. Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984 (11th Cir. 1985) (conclusory allegations without specific facts lack probative value)
- Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115 (U.S. 1985) (citizens are presumed capable of informing themselves about laws affecting them)