United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
GREGORY J. KELLY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the
MOTION: MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE (Doc. No.
FILED: December 27, 2018
THEREON it is RECOMMENDED that the motion be GRANTED.
19, 2018, Defendant Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc.
(“Hilton”) filed a Motion to Dismiss the original
Complaint in this case. Doc. No. 37. On November 5, 2018,
this Court issued a Report and Recommendation recommending
that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice as to
Hilton for failure to state a claim. Doc. No. 73. The Report
and Recommendation found:
With respect to the allegations raised in the Complaint,
i.e., that two state court judges, Plaintiff's
own counsel, the parent company of a hotel through an
employee, Miami-Dade County, and various law enforcement and
corrections officers and agencies, both state and federal,
conspired to arrest and detain Plaintiff in violation of his
constitutional rights, the Complaint fails to state a claim
for conspiracy, violation of Plaintiff's constitutional
rights, and abuse of process, as the allegations fail to
allege facts that demonstrate a meeting of the minds, fail to
provide any factual basis to demonstrate discriminatory
animus or motive, and fail to provide facts to support an
abuse of process or violation of Plaintiff's
constitutional rights. In fact, Plaintiff's allegations
are in essence nothing more than a minimal recitation of the
elements of various causes of action stated in a conclusory
fashion which fail to satisfy the requirement that Plaintiff
provide a short plain statement of the claim showing the
pleader is entitled to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at
Plaintiff's only allegation related to discriminatory
animus is a conclusory statement that his factual allegations
show a “pattern of practice that systematically
violates the Plaintiff's and African Americans'
rights, who have historically been victims of excessive force
and wrongful arrests by law enforcement officers . . . .
Plaintiff then incorporates that statement into his counts
against each defendant and states that “Because of the
acts committed . . . the Defendant caused or permitted the
violation of the Plaintiff's Constitutional Rights,
thereby entitling the Plaintiff to recover damages pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1343, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).”
Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 54, 70, 88, 96, 112, 128, 136,
These de minimus conclusory statements in no way
establish or suggest the type of invidious discriminatory
animus contemplated by the courts. Bray, 506 U.S. at
270; Artubel v. Colonial Bank Group, Inc., 2008 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 60781, at *54 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2008) (finding a
vague assertion of racial motivation was insufficient to
state a claim).
Further, Plaintiff offers no factual allegations regarding a
conspiracy amongst these actors or otherwise suggests
factually how they conferred and acted in concert to actively
deprive him of his constitutional rights. Thus, this claim is
subject to dismissal as to all defendants. Freyre,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66348, at *18.
Doc. No. 73 at 11, 13-14 (footnote omitted). The Court made
similar findings related to Plaintiff's abuse of process
claim. Doc. No. 73 at 14-15 (“Plaintiff has failed to
provide any allegations that a defendant as actor misused
this process initially or that there was an ulterior motive
for doing so, other than stating an abuse of process
November 29, 2018, the District Court issued an Order
adopting the Report and Recommendation, dismissing the
Complaint with prejudice as to Judges Rodriguez-Fonts and
Bigney, dismissing the Complaint without prejudice as to the
remaining Defendants, and permitting Plaintiff to file an
Amended Complaint. Doc. No. 82.
December 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Doc.
No. 83. With respect to Hilton, the Amended Complaint is
virtually identical to Plaintiff's original Complaint
save one new factual allegation and one new cause of
action. Compare Doc. Nos. 1 and 83.
Plaintiff alleges that he and his girlfriend checked into the
Waldorf-Astoria on May 3, 2018. Doc. No. 83 at 7. Plaintiff
now includes a new allegation that at some point between May
3, 2018 and May 7, 2018, when he was arrested, “the
Waldorf Astoria Hotel released private hotel guest
information in an attempt to conspire with U.S. Marshals
for the illegal kidnapping of [Plaintiff].” Doc. No. 83
at 7. Plaintiff then recounts that U.S. Marshals and Orange
County law enforcement “kidnapped” him from the
Waldorf Astoria Hotel's pool bathroom without presenting
a “valid warrant or adher[ing] to the Uniform Criminal
Extradition Act.” Doc. No. 83 at 7. Plaintiff alleges
that he was taken to a security video room inside the hotel,
that a hotel employee blocked the entrance to the pool
bathroom while he was being kidnapped, and that the employee
“diligently and zealously assisted” law
enforcement without proof of a valid warrant. Doc. No. 83 at
8. Plaintiff also alleges he was taken from the pool bathroom
to the parking lot behind the hotel and held handcuffed on
the ground between two parked unmarked vehicles. Doc. No. 83
at 8. Plaintiff alleges that when his girlfriend confronted
the hotel manager about the incident, he stated “he
knew nothing about the incident and had no documentation from
the law enforcement officers.” Doc. No. 83 at 8.
Plaintiff has alleged that Hilton is “the parent
company of the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in Orlando, FL, and is
being sued as a person.” Doc. No. 83 at 2.
on these factual allegations, Plaintiff alleges that Hilton
violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986, and
Plaintiff's Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment rights.
Doc. No. 83 at 18-20. Plaintiff alleges that Hilton conspired
“with Orange County, Florida Sheriff's Department
to kidnap Plaintiff.” Doc. No. 83 at 18. Plaintiff
alleges that Hilton violated the Fourth Amendment by giving
“private information to Orange County Sheriffs and U.S.
Marshalls [sic] in furtherance to allow defendant[s] to
conduct an illegal and unlawful arrest.” Doc. No. 83 at
19. Plaintiff alleges Hilton violated the Fifth Amendment by
permitting the “kidnap of Plaintiff without
verification of a valid and executed warrant.” Doc. ...