LOPEZ et al v. OKALOOSA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
FELIX LOPEZ &
LORENZO SCOTT,
Plaintiffs,
vs. 	Case No.: 3:25cv122/MCR/ZCB
OKALOOSA COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a pro se case filed by Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
Court previously informed Plaintiffs of deficiencies in earlier versions of
their complaint. 	(Docs. 8, 11, 14, 18). 	The Court previously dismissed
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, but Plaintiffs were provided with one
final opportunity to amend. (Doc. 18 at 3).
Plaintiffs have now filed a second amended complaint. 	(Doc. 22).
Because Plaintiffs are proceeding in forma pauperis (Doc. 7), the Court
must review the second amended complaint to determine if it is subject
to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Having reviewed the second
amended complaint, it should be dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Case 3:25-cv-00122-MCR-ZCB Document 23 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 8

2
I. 	Factual Allegations
Plaintiffs Felix Lopez and Lorenzo Scott bring this action against
the Sheriff of Okaloosa County in his official capacity, the City of Fort
Walton Beach, Officer Mooney in his individual capacity, and Officer
Montgomery in his individual capacity. 	(Doc. 22 at 1, 2). 	Plaintiffs’
complaint is based on various interactions they have had with law
enforcement dating as far back as 2010. 	(Id. at 3). 	Plaintiffs bring the
following 	counts: 	(1) 	“Fourth 	Amendment 	(Unreasonable
Seizure/Prolonged 	Detention)-§ 	1983”; 	(2) 	“Fourteenth 	Amendment
(Equal 	Protection/Discriminatory 	Policing/Profiling)-§ 	1983”; 	and 	(3)
“Municipal/Official Capacity Liability (Policy/Custom/Practice)-§ 1983
(Monell).” 	(Id. at 4-5). 	They seek declaratory, injunctive, and monetary
relief. (Id. at 5).
II. 	Statutory Screening Standard
To survive dismissal at the screening phase, “a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 	The plausibility standard is
met only where the facts alleged enable “the court to draw the reasonable
Case 3:25-cv-00122-MCR-ZCB Document 23 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 8

3
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 	Id.
Plausibility means “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully.” 	Id.
The Court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched
as a factual allegation.” Id. at 678 (cleaned up). “While legal conclusions
can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by
factual allegations.” 	Id. at 679. 	Thus, “assertions devoid of further
factual enhancement” are insufficient. 	Id. at 678.
III. 	Discussion
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a
complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim” showing
that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 	Plaintiffs’
vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient to plausibly allege a
claim for relief against any Defendant. 	See Pedro v. Equifax, Inc., 868
F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2017) (holding that “[c]onclusory allegations
and legal conclusions are not sufficient” to state a plausible claim for
relief). As the Supreme Court has made clear, a “plaintiff’s obligation to
provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
Case 3:25-cv-00122-MCR-ZCB Document 23 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 8

4
action will not do.” 	Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Yet, Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint has provided little factual
allegations in support of their claims. 	The factual allegations that are
found in the second amended complaint are vague, conclusory, and
insufficient to state a claim. For instance, Plaintiffs allege as follows:
• 	“Plaintiffs estimate approximately 23 to 30 stops between
roughly 	2010 	and 	2025 	involving 	the 	Okaloosa 	County
Sheriff’s Office and local agencies, often involving allegations
such 	as 	tint, 	equipment 	checks, 	or 	vague 	‘investigatory’
reasons, frequently without tickets.” (Doc. 22 at 3).
• 	“In the Fort Walton Beach area, Plaintiffs were stopped on at
least three occasions in or around 2019, 2020, and 2025 by
Fort Walton Police Department officers, including Officer
Mooney and Officer Montgomery.” (Id.).
• 	“Plaintiffs allege the stops were carried out with intimidation
and ‘word-of-mouth tactics,’ including repeated accusatory
questions and statements aimed at discouraging Plaintiffs
from driving or living normally in the community.” (Id.).
• 	“Plaintiffs 	further 	allege 	that 	officers 	have 	followed
Plaintiffs and that Felix Lopez and Lorenzo Scott have been
followed and watched in the area, contributing to fear and
distress.” (Id. at 4).
Plaintiffs fail to describe, however, the specifics of the 23-30 stops
between 2010 and 2025 and the three stops that occurred sometime
Case 3:25-cv-00122-MCR-ZCB Document 23 Filed 03/18/26 Page 4 of 8

5
between 2019 and 2025.1 	Nor do Plaintiffs specify in their second
amended complaint which one of them was stopped at what time.2
Plaintiffs also do not describe the “word-of-mouth” tactics, the accusatory
questions or statements, or how (or what) officers followed and watched
them. 	Moreover, Plaintiffs’ causes of action fail to provide any more
factual details. For instance:
• 	Plaintiffs claim Defendants Mooney and Montgomery violated
the Fourth Amendment, but Plaintiffs provide no factual
allegations specific to Defendants Mooney or Montgomery,
such as when they stopped Plaintiffs, their actions during the
stops, etc. (Doc. 1 at 4).
• 	Plaintiffs 	allege 	Defendants 	violated 	the 	Fourteenth
Amendment by discriminating against them because of their
race/ethnicity. 	(Id. 	at 	5). 	Plaintiffs 	fail 	to 	allege 	their
race/ethnicity. 	They 	also 	fail 	to 	provide 	any 	factual
1 A complaint must place Defendants on proper notice of Plaintiffs claims
against them. Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313,
1323 (11th Cir. 2015) (recognizing that a complaint must “give the
defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds
upon which each claim rests”). 	Here, for example, Plaintiffs failure to
specify the dates of the stops would prevent Defendants (and the Court)
from determining whether the statute of limitations bars Plaintiffs’
claims.
2 Plaintiffs were previously instructed that “[i]n order to show that the
Plaintiffs’ claims are properly jointed together in one suit against these
Defendants, any amended pleading must identify only those claims that
arise from common operative facts and incidents that are logically related
for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20.” 	(Doc. 18 at 3).
Plaintiffs have failed to heed that instruction in their second amended
complaint.
Case 3:25-cv-00122-MCR-ZCB Document 23 Filed 03/18/26 Page 5 of 8

6
allegations 	involving 	differential 	treatment 	of 	similarly
situated individuals.
• 	Plaintiffs allege that the City of Fort Walton Beach and the
Sheriff of Okaloosa County are subject to municipal liability
because of “repeated pattern of stops, use of tint as pretext,
intimidation, and database/BOLO targeting reflects a policy,
custom, 	or 	practice, 	and/or 	failures 	in
training/supervision/discipline, 	that 	caused 	constitutional
violations.” 	(Id.). 	But, 	beyond 	conclusory 	statements,
Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege the existence of any policy.
Nor do they plausibly allege facts sufficient to show a custom
or practice. 	Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege a
municipal liability claim against the City or the Sheriff.
Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint also “asserts multiple claims
against multiple defendants without specifying which of the defendants
are responsible for which acts or omissions[.]” 	Barmapov v. Amuial, 986
F.3d 1321, 1325 (11th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). 	Plaintiffs bring three
different counts, and while they specify which Defendants each of the
three 	claims 	are 	brought 	against, 	they 	group 	Defendants 	together
collectively without specifying each Defendant’s acts or omissions giving
rise to the cause of action.
These 	are 	just 	a 	few 	examples 	of 	the 	barebones, 	vague, 	and
conclusory allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint. 	Plaintiffs’ vague and
conclusory assertions of generalized illegality while providing little to no
factual detail to support any of these allegations do not suffice. See Iqbal,
Case 3:25-cv-00122-MCR-ZCB Document 23 Filed 03/18/26 Page 6 of 8

7
556 U.S. at 678 (stating that “naked assertions devoid of further factual
enhancement” are not sufficient to satisfy the plausibility standard)
(cleaned up). Although pro se complaints are to be liberally construed, it
is not the Court’s role to “act as de facto counsel or rewrite an otherwise
deficient pleading to sustain an action.” Bilal v. Geo Care, LLC, 981 F.3d
903, 911 (11th Cir. 2020).
Without 	a 	sufficient 	description 	of 	the 	factual 	allegations
underlying their claims, the Court does not have enough information to
make a plausibility determination regarding Plaintiffs’ claims. 	Nor do
Defendants have “adequate notice of the claims against them and the
grounds upon which each claim rests.” 	Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323.
Because Plaintiffs have made only vague and conclusory allegations,
Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts that plausibly state a claim for relief.
Plaintiffs have had multiple opportunities to correct the deficiencies in
their complaint. 	They have failed to do so. 	Dismissal, therefore, is
warranted.
IV. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
Case 3:25-cv-00122-MCR-ZCB Document 23 Filed 03/18/26 Page 7 of 8

8
1. 	Plaintiffs’ 	second 	amended 	complaint 	(Doc. 	22) 	be
DISMISSED for failure to state a claim on which relief may
be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
2. 	The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 18th day of March 2026.
/s/
Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice to the Parties
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must
be 	filed 	within 	fourteen 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may 	appear 	on 	the
electronic 	docket 	is 	for 	the 	court’s 	internal 	use 	only 	and 	does 	not
control. 	An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all
other parties. 	A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s
findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation
waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:25-cv-00122-MCR-ZCB Document 23 Filed 03/18/26 Page 8 of 8