United States District Court, S.D. Florida
STEVE K. HYPPOLITE, Plaintiff,
BROWARD SHERIFF'S OFFICE, OTHER UNKNOWN BSO OFFICERS and S. WILLIAMS, Defendants.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
G. COOKE United States District Judge
an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations
of Plaintiff Steve K. Hyppolite's constitutional rights
during his 2015 arrest for speeding and driving without a
valid driver's license. I have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1331.
is the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Broward
Sheriff's Office, Officer Sean Williams, and Other
Unknown BSO Officers. (ECF No. 41). For the reasons that
follow, I grant the Motion.
November 24, 2015, Officer Williams observed, and his radar
gun signaled, that Plaintiff was driving sixty-two miles per
hour on a street with a posted speed limit of forty miles per
hour. (ECF No. 41-1 at 2-3). Officer Williams pulled
Plaintiff over and asked him to produce his driver's
license. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff claimed that as a
“traveler” he did not need one. (Id.).
Officer Williams then arrested Plaintiff for speeding and
driving without a valid driver's license. (Id.
at 4). Plaintiff spent approximately fourteen hours in
custody before his release. (ECF No. 1 at 10).
7, 2016, Plaintiff filed this § 1983 action claiming
that Officer Williams lacked probable cause for his arrest
(Count I), and that he was falsely imprisoned as a result of
that arrest (Count II). (Id. at 5-6). Defendants
filed the instant Motion on April 10, 2017. (ECF No. 41).
Plaintiff's response to the Motion was due on or before
April 24, 2017, but he failed to file one. (Id.).
Plaintiff's inaction, I cannot grant Defendants'
Motion “merely for lack of any response by the opposing
party, since the district court must review the motion and
the supporting papers to determine whether they establish the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact.”
Kinder v. Carson, 127 F.R.D. 543, 545 (S.D. Fla.
1989) (quoting Jaroma v. Massey, 873 F.2d 17, 20
(1st Cir. 1989)). I therefore ordered Plaintiff to file a
response to Defendants' Motion on or before May 30, 2017,
or alternatively to show cause why I should not decide the
Motion on the record as it stands. (ECF No. 43). That day has
come and gone, and Plaintiff still has not filed a response
or explained his failure to do so.
I rule on Defendants' Motion based on the record before
judgment “shall be granted if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law.” Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642
(11th Cir. 1997) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)) (internal
quotations omitted); Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of
Florida, Inc., 196 F.3d 1354, 1358 (11th Cir. 1999).
Thus, the entry of summary judgment is appropriate
“against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient
to establish the existence of an element essential to that
party's case, and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
moving party bears the initial burden to show the district
court, by reference to materials on file, that there are no
genuine issues of material fact that should be decided at
trial.” Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929
F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). “Only when that burden
has been met does the burden shift to the non-moving party to
demonstrate that there is indeed a material issue of fact
that precludes summary judgment.” Id.
“requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the
pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the
‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, ' designate ‘specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. Thus, the nonmoving party
“may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of
his pleadings, but must set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
factual dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving
party.” Damon, 196 F.3d at 1358. “A mere
‘scintilla' of evidence supporting the opposing
party's position will not suffice; there must be enough
of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that
party.” Abbes v. Embraer Servs., Inc., 195 F.
App'x 898, 899-900 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Walker
v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990)).
deciding whether summary judgment is appropriate, “the
evidence, and all inferences drawn from the facts, must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party.” Bush v. Houston ...