James Lewis v. Keith Reyes, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12171
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JAMES F. LEWIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KEITH REYES,
Sergeant,
KARL MURKLAND,
Officer,
GREGG DUDLEY,
LAKE COUNTY FLORIDA SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12171 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2024 Page: 1 of 7

-- 1 of 7 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12171
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 5:22-cv-00650-JA-PRL
____________________
Before R OSENBAUM , GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
James Lewis was arrested for trespass when he refused to
leave school property after school authorities repeatedly requested
that he do so. Lewis brought suit against the state officials involved
in his arrest and the school district for violating his constitutional
rights. The district court dismissed his suit for failure to state a
claim. Because Lewis has not alleged any facts sufficient to show a
constitutional violation, we affirm.
I.
James Lewis, a self-proclaimed journalist, decided to stand
on the sidewalk outside of an elementary school and film the traffic
during school dismissal.1 While filming, Lewis complained about
the traffic to Sergeant Keith Reyes, who was on duty directing
traffic that day. Reyes calmly told Lewis that officers were doing
their best to address the traffic.
Principal Gregg Dudley then came outside and asked Lewis
why he was at the school. Lewis told Dudley that he was there to
1 The following facts are from Lewis’s video recording, which he provided as
part of his complaint.
USCA11 Case: 23-12171 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2024 Page: 2 of 7

-- 2 of 7 --

23-12171 Opinion of the Court 3
monitor the traffic, and that he wanted to make a public records
request. Dudley responded that all public records requests must be
made with the district office, but Lewis insisted on making his
request at the school. Dudley and Reyes eventually walked away
from Lewis and onto school property.
Undeterred, Lewis again approached Dudley and Reyes,
reasserting his same request for public records. Dudley and Reyes
informed Lewis that he was on school property, and Dudley
reiterated that public records requests must be made at the district
office. He repeatedly asked Lewis to leave, but Lewis refused and
instead continued to request public records. Dudley informed
Reyes that he wanted to trespass Lewis from the school. Reyes
asked Lewis for identification, which Lewis refused to provide.
The two argued until Lewis walked away.
Lewis, though, continued to film; when one parent asked
Lewis to stop filming his children, Lewis began arguing with him.
At that point, Reyes approached Lewis and arrested him for
trespass. Lewis soon complained that the handcuffs were too tight.
Reyes responded that the handcuffs were okay, but Lewis raised
the same complaint while he was being driven to jail by Reyes and
Officer Karl Marklund. Marklund responded that the handcuffs
would be removed at the jail.
Lewis was charged with trespassing on school grounds in
violation of Fla. Stat. § 810.097. He admitted guilt to this charge,
but still brought § 1983 claims against Reyes, Marklund, Dudley,
and the Lake County Florida School District for violating his
USCA11 Case: 23-12171 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2024 Page: 3 of 7

-- 3 of 7 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-12171
constitutional rights. He alleged that Dudley violated his First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights by trespassing him while he was
engaging in protected First Amendment activity. He claimed that
Reyes and Marklund violated his Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights by unlawfully arresting him without probable
cause and using excessive force. He also asserted that the District
failed to properly train Dudley as the custodian of public records.
And he argued that all of the defendants retaliated against him for
exercising his First Amendment rights. The district court dismissed
his claims for failure to state a claim. Lewis now appeals.
II.
We review a district court’s ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss de novo, “accepting the allegations in the complaint as
true and construing them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). “But
where a video is clear and obviously contradicts the plaintiff’s
alleged facts, we accept the video’s depiction instead of the
complaint’s account and view the facts in the light depicted by the
video.” Baker v. City of Madison, 67 F.4th 1268, 1277–78 (11th Cir.
2023) (citation omitted). To decide whether a complaint properly
states a claim, a court must first disregard any conclusory
allegations and then determine whether any remaining factual
allegations, if assumed as true, “plausibly give rise to an entitlement
to relief.” McCullough v. Finley, 907 F.3d 1324, 1333 (11th Cir. 2018)
(quotation omitted).
USCA11 Case: 23-12171 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2024 Page: 4 of 7

-- 4 of 7 --

23-12171 Opinion of the Court 5
III.
Section 1983 allows state officers and municipalities to be
held liable for constitutional violations. An arrest without a
warrant or probable cause “violates the Constitution and provides
a basis for a section 1983 claim.” Miller v. Harget, 458 F.3d 1251,
1259 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). An officer has probable
cause for an arrest “when the facts and circumstances within the
officers’ knowledge, of which he or she has reasonably trustworthy
information, would cause a prudent person to believe, under the
circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is
committing, or is about to commit an offense.” Id. (quotation
omitted).
Florida law authorizes an officer to “arrest either on or off
the premises and without warrant any person the officer has
probable cause for believing has committed the offense of trespass
upon the grounds of a school facility.” Fla. Stat. § 810.097(4). A
person commits a trespass if he “enters or remains upon the
campus or other facility of a school after the principal of such
school” has “directed such person to leave such campus or facility
or not to enter upon the campus or facility” Id. § 810.097(2).
Lewis’s rights under the First Amendment, Fourth
Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment were not violated
because probable cause supported his arrest. First, state law
authorized Dudley to ask Lewis to leave school property, and it
provides that Lewis committed trespass by refusing to comply with
those requests. See id. § 810.097. Lewis does not challenge this law
USCA11 Case: 23-12171 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2024 Page: 5 of 7

-- 5 of 7 --

6 Opinion of the Court 23-12171
or argue that it is unconstitutional.2 And because Lewis committed
trespass by refusing to comply with Dudley’s requests to leave
school property, Reyes and Murkland had probable cause to arrest
him. See Miller, 458 F.3d at 1259. Lewis’s arrest was thus
constitutional, and he provides no factual basis to support his claim
that the defendants’ conduct was in retaliation for his speech rather
than his unauthorized presence on school grounds in violation of
Florida law.
Lewis’s failure-to-train and excessive force claims also fail
because he does not plausibly allege a constitutional violation.
Lewis argues that the District is liable because it failed to
adequately train Dudley about public records requests. But Florida
law only requires that a custodian of public records “acknowledge
requests to inspect or copy records promptly and respond to such
requests in good faith.” Fla. Stat. § 119.07(1)(c). Based on the facts
alleged, Dudley complied with that requirement—he
acknowledged Lewis’s public records request and instructed him
on the appropriate means for making that request. Lewis thus
failed to allege sufficient facts supporting any violation. Lastly,
Lewis’s excessive force claim fails because the fact that his
handcuffs were tight is not enough to support an allegation of
2 Even if Lewis did take issue with Florida’s trespass law, the fact that it may
have incidentally affected his First Amendment activities does not make its
enforcement a constitutional violation. See Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 47–
48 (1966).
USCA11 Case: 23-12171 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2024 Page: 6 of 7

-- 6 of 7 --

23-12171 Opinion of the Court 7
excessive force. See Gold v. City of Miami, 121 F.3d 1442, 1446–47
(11th Cir. 1997).
* * *
Lewis failed to provide sufficient facts supporting any
constitutional violation by the defendants. The district court did
not err, then, in dismissing his claims. We AFFIRM.
USCA11 Case: 23-12171 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2024 Page: 7 of 7

-- 7 of 7 --