Timothy Jacob Barr v. Cross City, Florida, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida accepted and adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation over the plaintiff’s objections. The court dismissed Counts IV through IX of the third amended complaint for failure to state plausible claims, while permitting Counts I through III to proceed.

Holdings

1. Count IV failed to state a plausible constitutional claim and was properly dismissed because there is no constitutional right to an investigation of an excessive-force complaint, and the allegations did not plausibly establish fabrication of incriminating evidence.
2. Count V failed to state a plausible supervisory-liability claim against the Chief of Police and Sheriff and was properly dismissed in its entirety.
3. Counts VI and VII failed to state plausible municipal-liability claims against Dixie County and Cross City because the complaint did not allege an underlying constitutional violation or a municipal policy or custom causing one.
4. Count VIII failed to state a plausible First Amendment claim because there is no First Amendment right to public information, and the court would not recognize an unpleaded Fourteenth Amendment theory raised only in objections.
5. Count IX failed to state a plausible failure-to-intervene claim because the complaint did not allege that Defendant Timmons was in a position to intervene during the arrest or alleged beating, and an after-the-fact failure to come forward as a witness did not fit the recognized failure-to-intervene theory.
6. A plaintiff may not amend a complaint or reformulate the legal theories supporting claims by raising new theories in objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Count IV plausibly alleged a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim based on a deficient investigation or fabrication of evidence.
2. Whether Count V plausibly alleged supervisory liability or deliberate indifference against the Chief of Police and county sheriff.
3. Whether Counts VI and VII plausibly alleged municipal liability against Dixie County and Cross City.
4. Whether Count VIII stated a First Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment claim based on the alleged failure to produce public records.
5. Whether Count IX plausibly alleged a Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-intervene claim against a person who allegedly failed to come forward as a witness after the incident.
6. Whether Plaintiff could amend or reformulate his claims through objections to the report and recommendation.

Disposition

remanded