Kelvin Rance v. Village of Palm Springs, Florida, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13436
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:15-cv-80650-DMM
KELVIN RANCE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
VILLAGE OF PALM SPRINGS, FLORIDA,
CPL JOSEPH DEROGATIS,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 14, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin Rance appeals pro se the sua sponte dismissal of his complaint
against police officers for the Village of Palm Springs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Case: 15-13436 Date Filed: 03/14/2016 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Rance complained that the officers unlawfully searched and seized him and falsely
imprisoned him. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Rance later filed a proposed amended
complaint alleging virtually the same facts and claims for relief. The district court
dismissed Rance’s complaint for failure to state a claim and denied as moot his
motion to amend his complaint. We affirm.
Rance’s complaint stemmed from an incident early in the morning on
December 5, 2014, when police officers approached Rance while he was sitting in
the driver’s seat of a vehicle parked on the shoulder of Almar Road in Palm
Springs. Rance alleged that Corporal Joseph Derogatis unlawfully detained and
falsely imprisoned him when, at 1:46 a.m., Corporal Derogatis parked his vehicle
“nose to nose” with Rance’s vehicle, and at 1:47 a.m., a second patrol car “blocked
[Rance’s] vehicle in from the rear.” Rance alleged that Corporal Derogatis
conducted an unlawful search and seizure by shining his flashlight on Rance,
requesting that Rance roll down his window and produce his driver’s license,
checking his criminal history, and requiring him to undergo a field sobriety test
even though he “did not have any intoxicant(s) or contraband” in his vehicle and
had not consumed any “intoxicants.” Rance alleged that Corporal Derogatis did not
search Rance or his vehicle and “released [him] at approximately 2:00 a.m.”
We apply two standards of review in this appeal. We review de novo the sua
sponte dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim. Alba v. Montford, 517
Case: 15-13436 Date Filed: 03/14/2016 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

3
F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). We review the denial of leave to amend a
complaint for abuse of discretion, but “we exercise de novo review as to the
underlying legal conclusion that an amendment to the complaint would be futile.”
SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 600 F.3d 1334, 1336 (11th Cir.
2010).
The district court did not err by dismissing Rance’s complaint. Consistent
with the Fourth Amendment, “[o]fficers are free, without any level of suspicion, to
approach citizens on the street or in a public place and ask them questions [and]
request proof of identification . . . .” Miller v. Harget, 458 F.3d 1251, 1257 (11th
Cir. 2006). Corporal Derogatis was entitled to approach Rance, illuminate the
interior of his vehicle, and inquire why he was parked on the side of the road in the
early morning. See United States v. Purcell, 236 F.3d 1274, 1277–78 (11th Cir.
2001). And the length of Rance’s detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment:
“A detention of fourteen minutes is certainly not unreasonable on its face.” Id. at
1277. That Corporal Derogatis required Rance to undergo a field sobriety test after
which he was released without penalty caused, at most, a de minimis violation of
the prohibition against unreasonable seizures. See Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S.
651, 674, 97 S. Ct. 1401, 1414 (1977) (“There is . . . a de minimis level of
imposition with which the Constitution is not concerned.”). Rance also was not
falsely imprisoned in violation of his right to due process under the Fourteenth
Case: 15-13436 Date Filed: 03/14/2016 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Amendment because the officers released him immediately after determining that
he was not intoxicated. See Campbell v. Johnson, 586 F.3d 835, 840 (11th Cir.
2009).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied as moot Rance’s
motion to amend his complaint. The district court “consider[ed] both Rance’s
Complaint and proposed Amended Complaint for purposes of examining whether
[his] action should be dismissed.” “Leave to amend a complaint is futile when the
complaint as amended would still be properly dismissed[.]” Cockrell v. Sparks,
510 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007). Rance’s motion to amend was futile.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Rance’s complaint.
Case: 15-13436 Date Filed: 03/14/2016 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --