United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
GREGORY A. PRESIVELL, JUDGE
matter comes before the Court without a hearing on the Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. 24) filed by the Defendants and the response
in opposition (Doc. 25) filed by the Plaintiff, Regina
to the allegations of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 21), which
are accepted in pertinent part as true for purposes of
resolving the instant motion, Williams is an Orange County
resident, and the Defendants - Timothy Allen
(“Allen”) and Michelle Tillman
(“Tillman”) - are officers with the Ocoee Police
Department. Williams was involved in a traffic accident on
March 6, 2008 in which the other driver was killed and
Williams was determined by the police to be at fault. (Doc.
21 at 4). On April 25, 2008, her license was suspended for an
(unrelated) failure to pay a traffic fine. (Doc. 21 at 4).
August 2008, Tillman conducted a search on DAVID -
Florida's Driver and Vehicle Information Database -
regarding Williams. (Doc. 21 at 4). Tillman found “that
Williams had a suspended license but her license was not
suspended at the time of the accident.” (Doc. 21 at 4).
knowing that Williams' license was not suspended on the
day of the accident, the Defendants informed the state
attorney and the state court to the contrary. (Doc. 21 at 5).
More specifically, Tillman submitted a report containing the
false information, and Williams submitted it to the court and
to the state attorney. (Doc. 21 at 5). Relying on this
information, the state attorney filed charges against
Williams for violating Florida Statute § 322.34(6),
driving without a valid driver's license causing serious
injury or death, a third degree felony. Williams was arrested
on September 12, 2009. (Doc. 21 at 3).
December 11, 2012, a state court judge, Bob Leblanc,
dismissed the charges against Williams. (Doc. 21-5 at 1). In
that order (henceforth, the “Dismissal Order”),
Judge LeBlanc noted that the prosecution had asserted that
Williams' license had been suspended as of March 6, 2008
but had had not presented any evidence to prove this point.
(Doc. 21-5 at 1). Judge LeBlanc then stated that
In fact, the infraction … for which her license was
allegedly suspended shows via Clerk's Office
“events” to have a notice of suspension issued on
May 1, 2008 - almost two months after the crash.
(Doc. 21-5 at 1).
December 12, 2016, Williams filed the instant suit. In her
Amended Complaint, Williams asserts two claims for malicious
prosecution - one against each defendant - pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. By way of the instant motion, the
Defendants seek dismissal of both claims.
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief” so as to give the defendant fair
notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct.
99, 103, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), overruled on other
grounds, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
merely tests the sufficiency of the complaint; it does not
decide the merits of the case. Milbum v. United
States, 734 F.2d 762, 765 (11th Cir.1984). In ruling on
a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept the factual
allegations as true and construe the complaint in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff. SEC v. ESM Group,
Inc., 835 F.2d 270, 272 (11th Cir.1988). The Court must
also limit its consideration to the pleadings and any
exhibits attached thereto. Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c); see also
GSW, Inc. v. Long County, Ga., 999 F.2d 1508, 1510 (11th
plaintiff must provide enough factual allegations to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level,
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1966, and to
indicate the presence of the required elements, Watts v.
Fla. Int'l Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1302 (11th Cir.
2007). Conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual deductions
or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent
dismissal. Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d
1183, 1185 (11th Cir. 2003).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173
L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), the Supreme Court explained that a
complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations,
“but it demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading
that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a
complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of
further factual enhancement.” Id. at 1949
(internal citations and quotations omitted). “[W]here
the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more
than the mere possibility of ...