Taylor v. Bradshaw et al, No. 9:2011cv80911 - Document 61 (S.D. Fla. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 48 Motion to Dismiss; granting 55 Motion to Amend/Correct. Clerks Notice: Filer must separately re-file the amended pleading pursuant to Local Rule 15.1, unless otherwise ordered by the Judge(Amended Ple adings due by 8/5/2013); denying without prejudice 55 Motion to Compel; granting 56 Motion to reduce cost in this matter by allowing filing with the Clerk to be service on all defendants represented by an attorney. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 7/25/2013. (ir)

Download PDF

Taylor v. Bradshaw et al Doc. 61 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 11-80911-CIV-MARRA CHARLOTTE TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF RIC L. BRADSHAW; PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF S CAPTAIN ED JABLONSKI; PALM BEACH SHERIFF S SERGEANT SCOTT SCHWAB; PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF S SERGEANT TERESA BLOESER; AND PALM BEACH SHERIFF S DEPUTY [UNKNOWN DUE TO REFUSAL TO GIVE ME HIS CARD WITH HIS NAME ON IT.] Defendants. _______________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Filed on Behalf of Defendants, Palm Beach County Sheriff, Ric L. Bradshaw, Palm Beach County Sheriff s Captain Ed Jablonski, Palm Beach County Sheriff s Sergeant Scott Schwab, Palm Beach County Sheriff s Sergeant Teresa Bloeser, and Palm Beach County Sheriff s Deputy [Unknown] [DE 48]; Plaintiff s Motion to Amend and Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures Including the Name and Address of the Unknown Defendant [DE 54]; and the Motion of Charlotte Taylor, Pro Se Plaintiff, to Reduce Cost in this Matter by Allowing Filing with the Clerk to be Service on all Defendants Represented by an Attorney [DE 56]. The Court has reviewed all the submissions of the parties and is otherwise duly advised in the premises. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Familiarity with the Court s prior decision is assumed [DE 40]. The Court hereby incorporates by reference the background facts and legal standards set forth therein, as none of these have changed since the Court s opinion and order on Defendants last motion to dismiss. Having reviewed Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint [DE 42], it is clear that Plaintiff has attempted to comply with the Court s prior ruling [DE 40]. The moving Defendants have pointed to a few remaining deficiencies in Plaintiff s pleading in their Motion to Dismiss. Upon review of Plaintiff s proposed Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff appears to address them. Defendants oppose Plaintiff s motion to amend as dilatory and futile [DE 58]. The Court disagrees. With the exception of the items Plaintiff addresses in her proposed amended complaint, the Court rejects Defendants Motion to Dismiss. In Defendants motion, they object to the formulaic recitation by Plaintiff of the elements of her causes of action; however, she has followed the Court s prior decision in adding this language. Defendants also raise again their qualified immunity defense; however, the Court has already rejected that as a basis for dismissing the case at this stage of the proceedings [DE 40]. Finally, Defendants again take the position that Plaintiff is barred from bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 because she has claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, citing to Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta ,Ga., 112 F.3d 1522(11th Cir. 1997). Holbrook concluded that a plaintiff may not maintain a section 1983 action in lieu of or in addition to a Rehabilitation Act or ADA cause of action if the only alleged deprivation is of the employee s rights created by the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. Id. at 1531(emphasis added). Here, Plaintiff s 1983 claims are for the deprivation of her constitutional rights relative to access to the court. These do not arise out of the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA. Therefore, Holbrook does not bar Plaintiff s 1983 claims. Regarding Plaintiff s Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures, until Defendants answer the 2 Third Amended Complaint, it is premature for the Court to compel disclosures. Therefore, Plaintiff s Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures is denied without prejudice. Defendants did not oppose Plaintiff s Motion to Reduce Cost [DE 56]. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 1. Plaintiff s Motion to Amend and Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures Including the Name and Address of the Unknown Defendant [DE 54] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff s Motion to Amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file and serve her Third Amended Complaint by August 5, 2013. Plaintiff s Motion to Compel Disclosures is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2. Plaintiff s Motion to Reduce Cost in this Matter by Allowing Filing with the Clerk to be Service on all Defendants Represented by an Attorney [DE 56] is GRANTED. 3. Defendant s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff s Amended Complaint [DE 48] is DENIED AS MOOT. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this 25th day of July, 2013. ______________________ KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.