TEAMER v. GUY

Page 1 of 12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
KERRICK V. TEAMER, JR.,
DOC # P62428,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 3:25cv683-LC-MAF
ROBERT L. GUY, JR.,
BRUCE E. HARRIS, JR., etc.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff is a pro se prisoner who was granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff’s initial complaint asserted § 1983
claims against two Defendants: Guy and Harris. ECF No. 1. Finding it
insufficient, Plaintiff was required to file an amended complaint. ECF No.
11. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, ECF No. 14, presented claims only
as to Defendant Guy, but the factual allegations were contradictory to the
assertions made in the initial complaint. 	See ECF No. 15. Plaintiff was
provided an opportunity to file a second amended complaint. 	Id.
Case 3:25-cv-00683-LC-MAF Document 19 Filed 11/03/25 Page 1 of 12

Page 2 of 12
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, ECF No. 18, was filed on
October 27, 2025. This version of the complaint now proceeds against four
Defendants, all employees of the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office. 	Id.
The second amended complaint has been reviewed as required by 28
U.S.C. § 1915A.
Plaintiff now asserts new claims against Defendants Leach and
Menally. The only factual basis asserted for the claims is that on
December 3, 2020, Defendant Menally arrested Plaintiff in case # 2020-
CF-005-247A. 	ECF No. 18 at 6. Plaintiff was given pre-trial release with
an ankle monitor. 	Id. 	On May 24, 2021, Defendant Leach arrested Plaintiff
on a charge of petit theft in case number 170509920. 	Id. 	No other details
about those arrests were provided, no facts were alleged to show that
those Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights, and no basis was asserted for
including those Defendants in this case. Plaintiff only alleged that after his
subsequent arrest on June 11, 2021, for a May 28, 2021, drive-by shooting,
the prior two cases were “dismissed.” 	Id. at 9.
It is not permissible to bring multiple, unrelated claims and events
against multiple Defendants in a single case. Rule 20 permits a party to
bring claims against multiple persons in one case, so long as the claims
Case No. 3:25cv683-LC-MAF
Case 3:25-cv-00683-LC-MAF Document 19 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 12

Page 3 of 12
are related. Rosado v. Nichols, 2:18-CV-195-JES-MRM, 2017 WL
1476255, at *6 (M.D. Fla. 2017) (stating that “[a] plaintiff may set forth only
related claims in one civil rights complaint”). As the Seventh Circuit
observed, “multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A
against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against
Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in
different suits[.]” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)
(quoted in Watson v. Florida., No. 2:23-CV-1126-SPC-KCD, 2023 WL
8699459, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2023)). Rule 20 directs that claims
must: (A) arise “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences; and” (B) have a “question of law or fact
common to all defendants . . . in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint improperly seeks to add unrelated
claims against Defendants Menally and Leach. The claims arise from
separate events and issues and, thus, violates Rule 20.
Moreover, Plaintiff’s claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and
malicious prosecution against both Defendants, see ECF No. 18 at 12, are
insufficient. Plaintiff did not present any other facts to show why his arrests
by Defendants Leach or Menally were unlawful. Plaintiff has not alleged
Case No. 3:25cv683-LC-MAF
Case 3:25-cv-00683-LC-MAF Document 19 Filed 11/03/25 Page 3 of 12

Page 4 of 12
that he was arrested without a warrant, or without probable cause. The
fact that the cases were ultimately dismissed, by itself, does not
necessarily mean that Plaintiff was falsely arrested or suffered a malicious
prosecution. That is especially true when Plaintiff was simultaneously
being prosecuted for a far more serious charge. Moreover, any claim
asserted against Defendant Menally for Plaintiff’s 2020 arrest would be
barred by the statute of limitations which is four years. The claims against
those Defendants should be dismissed.
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Guy and Harris are based on
their involvement in investigating a “drive-by shooting” that occurred on
May 28, 2021. ECF No. 18 at 6. Those Defendants questioned Plaintiff
about the shooting on June 2, 2021, after receipt of an anonymous tip;
Plaintiff denied any involvement. 	Id. at 7-8. Nevertheless, Plaintiff was
arrested on that date for violating the pre-trial release order in the 2020
case and Defendants seized three cell phones “found in [Plaintiff’s]
vicinity.” 	Id. at 7. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Harris submitted an
allegedly incorrect and false affidavit 1 to obtain a search warrant to search
1 According to Plaintiff, the affidavit said Plaintiff “was identified by witnesses as the
individual who was in the blue in color SUV at” the time and location of the shooting.
ECF No. 18 at 8. Plaintiff says that statement was incorrect as Defendant Guy
Case No. 3:25cv683-LC-MAF
Case 3:25-cv-00683-LC-MAF Document 19 Filed 11/03/25 Page 4 of 12

Page 5 of 12
the three cell phones seized from Plaintiff. 	Id. 	According to Plaintiff, the
search revealed that Plaintiff’s phones - but not the Plaintiff - “were in the
location of the shooting on the date in question.” 	Id. at 9. Defendant Guy
then drafted an affidavit to obtain an arrest warrant for Plaintiff. 	Id. 	Plaintiff
asserts claims for unreasonable seizure, false arrest, false imprisonment,
and malicious prosecution against Defendants Guy and Harris.
First, Plaintiff’s claims for malicious prosecution suffer from a fatal
flaw. The elements of a malicious prosecution claim require Plaintiff to
show: (1) a criminal prosecution instituted or continued by the present
defendant; (2) with malice and without probable cause; (3) that terminated
in the plaintiff's favor; and (4) caused damage to the plaintiff. Stefani v.
City of Grovetown, 780 F. App’x 842, 847 (11th Cir. 2019). The criminal
proceeding stemming from the drive-by shooting did not end in Plaintiff’s
favor 2 as Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Florida Department of
subsequently admitted that no witnesses identified Plaintiff “as being present during the
shooting incident.” Id. at 9-10. Plaintiff’s initial complaint alleged that Defendant Guy
testified in his deposition that “no witnesses” identified Plaintiff as present during the
shooting, and Defendant Harris testified in his deposition that he “did not have any
independent knowledge of the alleged witnesses who identified [Plaintiff] at the shooting
and that he obtained the information from [Defendant] Guy.” ECF No. 1 at 8-9.
2 Judicial notice is taken of the Florida Department of Corrections website which
shows Plaintiff is incarcerated for second degree murder, with the offense taking place
on May 28, 2021.
Case No. 3:25cv683-LC-MAF
Case 3:25-cv-00683-LC-MAF Document 19 Filed 11/03/25 Page 5 of 12

Page 6 of 12
Corrections and serving a life sentence as a result of the May 28, 2021,
events.
Second, Plaintiff has presented both a false arrest and false
imprisonment claim. As Plaintiff was previously informed, ECF No. 11 at 7,
a “claim of false arrest or imprisonment under the Fourth Amendment
concerns seizures without legal process, such as warrantless arrests.”
Williams v. Aguirre, 965 F.3d 1147, 1158 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted)
(quoted in Spinnenweber v. Williams, 825 F. App’x 730, 732–33 (11th Cir.
2020)). However, if an arrest warrant was issued, then Plaintiff’s claim for
false arrest is extinguished because he was arrested pursuant to “legal
process.” Plaintiff acknowledged that an arrest warrant was issued and,
therefore, Plaintiff’s false arrest claim must fail.
As for the false imprisonment claim, Plaintiff has not provided
sufficient facts to support this claim.
In Florida, “[f]alse imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of a
person against his will.” 	Johnson v. Weiner, 155 Fla. 169, 19
So. 2d 699, 700 (1944). “The key aspects of false
imprisonment are imprisonment contrary to the plaintiff's will
and the unlawfulness of the detention.” 	Harder v. Edwards, 174
So. 3d 524, 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quotation omitted and
alteration adopted). Against a law enforcement officer,
“probable cause is a complete bar to an action for ... false
Case No. 3:25cv683-LC-MAF
Case 3:25-cv-00683-LC-MAF Document 19 Filed 11/03/25 Page 6 of 12

Page 7 of 12
imprisonment.” 	Bolanos v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 677 So. 2d
1005, 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
Baxter v. Roberts, 54 F.4th 1241, 1271 (11th Cir. 2022). In this case,
Plaintiff alleged that Defendants Guy and Harris arrested him on June 2,
2021, for “allegedly violating” the pretrial release conditions imposed in the
2020 case and which required Plaintiff to wear an ankle monitor. Plaintiff’s
only contention is that his arrest was unlawful because his pretrial release
officer had not filed an affidavit of a violation. ECF No. 18 at 7, 8. Such a
fact, if true, would not mean that Defendants lacked probable cause to
believe Plaintiff had violated his conditions of release. However, that
allegation is not true.
The Court takes judicial notice of the state court records 3 from case
2020 CF 0052437A of the First Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Escambia
County, Florida. On June 1, 2021, Tiffany Pierce, Escambia County Pre-
Trial Officer, filed an affidavit to revoke Plaintiff’s pre-trial services bond.
3 Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits a court to “judicially notice a fact that is not
subject to reasonable dispute because it ... can be accurately and readily determined
from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid.
201(b)(2) (quoted in Kerruish v. Essex Holdings, Inc., 777 F. App’x 285, 293 (11th Cir.
2019) (citing to Cunningham v. Dist. Att'y’s Office, 592 F.3d 1237, 1255 (11th Cir. 2010)
(taking judicial notice of federal and state court records)). The Eleventh Circuit has
explained, “[j]udicial notice of court records is ordinarily confined to determining what
happened in the course of a proceeding—when a plaintiff filed a complaint, what claims
were argued and adjudicated, and so on.” Kerruish, 777 F. App’x at 293.
Case No. 3:25cv683-LC-MAF
Case 3:25-cv-00683-LC-MAF Document 19 Filed 11/03/25 Page 7 of 12

Page 8 of 12
The affidavit explained that Plaintiff failed to comply with special condition
number 8 which required him to wear an active GPS monitor; the monitor
was last active on May 27, 2021, and had been dead since that date. An
order was entered revoking Plaintiff’s bond and a capias was issued on
June 1st. Therefore, when Plaintiff was subsequently arrested on June
2nd at the same time he was brought in for questioning, it was subject to a
lawful warrant. Plaintiff’s false imprisonment claim must fail.
The only remaining claim is Plaintiff’s “unreasonable seizure” claim.
He contends Defendants Guy and Harris unreasonably seized his cell
phones. The chain of events alleged demonstrates why this claim is
insufficient. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff said he was brought to the police station
for questioning on June 2, 2021, after law enforcement received an
“anonymous tip.” 	Id. at 7. Plaintiff was arrested on that same date for
violating a pre-trial release order. 	Id. 	Because of Plaintiff’s arrest, he could
not retain his personal property; an arrestee is not entitled to keep a cell
phone, much less three of them. The seizure of Plaintiff’s cell phone was
not unreasonable under the circumstances.
Plaintiff also alleged that Defendant Harris’ affidavit in support of the
search warrant included an incorrect statement - that witnesses said
Case No. 3:25cv683-LC-MAF
Case 3:25-cv-00683-LC-MAF Document 19 Filed 11/03/25 Page 8 of 12

Page 9 of 12
Plaintiff was in the blue SUV. Plaintiff has not, however, pointed to any
other allegedly incorrect or false statements included in the affidavit, he has
not alleged that other key information was omitted, nor has he shown that
the affidavit was so lacking in reliability or veracity that there was not “a fair
probability that contraband or evidence of a crime” would be found. United
States v. Jiminez, 224 F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting Illinois v.
Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983))
(quoted in United States v. Lebowitz, 647 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1344 (N.D.
Ga. 2009), aff’d, 676 F.3d 1000 (11th Cir. 2012)). Plaintiff’s second
amended complaint is conclusory as he has not alleged facts which show
that issuance of a search warrant by a neutral state court judge, based on
the totality of the statements submitted in Defendant’s affidavit, rendered it
insufficient to show probable cause. 	See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S.
154, 165, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 2681, 57 L. Ed. 2d 667 (1978) (stating that
“probable cause may be founded upon hearsay and upon information
received from informants, as well as upon information within the affiant’s
own knowledge that sometimes must be garnered hastily”).
“Search warrants must be supported by probable cause and describe
with particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized.”
Case No. 3:25cv683-LC-MAF
Case 3:25-cv-00683-LC-MAF Document 19 Filed 11/03/25 Page 9 of 12

Page 10 of 12
United States v. Floyd, No. 22-12693, 2023 WL 5603213, at *3 (11th Cir.
Aug. 30, 2023); U.S. Const. amend. IV. “A probable-cause affidavit ‘must
provide the magistrate [judge] with a substantial basis for determining the
existence of probable cause.’” Floyd, 2023 WL 5603213, at *3 (quoting
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 239 (1983)). “An affidavit filed in support of
a search warrant application is presumed valid.” United States v. Boyce,
No. 23-10486, 2025 WL 1892569, at *3 (11th Cir. July 9, 2025) (citing
Franks, 438 U.S. at 171).
To challenge an affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant, a
litigant must show “that (1) the affiant deliberately or recklessly included
false statements, or failed to include material information, in the affidavit;
and (2) the challenged statement or omission was essential to the finding
of probable cause.” United States v. Arbolaez, 450 F.3d 1283, 1293 (11th
Cir. 2006) (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 155–56) (quoted in Boyce, 2025
WL 1892569, at *3. Here, Plaintiff has not made that showing. Moreover,
even if Plaintiff could argue that the search warrant was insufficient to show
probable cause, the remedy would be to void the warrant and exclude the
evidence. Mayer v. United States, No. 23-11012, 2024 WL 3410051, at *3
(11th Cir. July 15, 2024) (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 156); see also United
Case No. 3:25cv683-LC-MAF
Case 3:25-cv-00683-LC-MAF Document 19 Filed 11/03/25 Page 10 of 12

Page 11 of 12
States v. Harris, 172 F. App’x 950, 959 (11th Cir. 2006). Because
Plaintiff’s attack on the affidavit supporting the issuance of a search
warrant is insufficient, the Fourth Amendment challenge asserted against
Defendant Harris should also be dismissed.
Plaintiff has already been provided sufficient opportunities to file a
viable civil rights complaint. Because it does not appear that Plaintiff could
present any facts which would state a viable claim, it is recommended that
this case be dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s second amended
complaint, ECF No. 18, be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and that
the Order adopting this Report and Recommendation direct the Clerk of
Court to note on the docket that this cause was dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on November 3, 2025.
S/ 	Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case No. 3:25cv683-LC-MAF
Case 3:25-cv-00683-LC-MAF Document 19 Filed 11/03/25 Page 11 of 12

Page 12 of 12
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written
objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. 	Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon all other
parties. 	A party may respond to another party’s objections within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). 	Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic
docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control. 	If a
party 	fails 	to 	object 	to 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	findings 	or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this
Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on
appeal the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case No. 3:25cv683-LC-MAF
Case 3:25-cv-00683-LC-MAF Document 19 Filed 11/03/25 Page 12 of 12