Edwards v. City of Fort Myers

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

DERICK EDWARDS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:19-cv-711-SPC-NPM

GUILLERMO MONMANY, JAMES HEUGLIN, BRIAN RHOTON and CARMINE MARCENO,

Defendants.

/ ORDER1 Before the Court is Plaintiff Derick Edwards’ “Request for a Court Order and/or Assistance.” (Doc. 220). The Court denies Edwards’ request. This is an excessive force case. Police stopped Edwards for making a wide right turn.2 During the stop, a struggle ensued. That struggle formed the basis for Edwards’ claims of excessive force, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, and Monell claims3. No claim

1 Disclaimer: Papers hyperlinked to CM/ECF may be subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or their services or products, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is not responsible for a hyperlink’s functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order.

2 This turn would violate Florida Statute 316.151(1)(a). It is a noncriminal traffic infraction. 3 Monell and its progeny establish when local governments may be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). challenged the validity of the original traffic stop. After a thorough review of the evidence including body cam footage of the stop, the Court granted

Defendants’ Motion for Final Summary Judgment. (Doc. 219). The same day the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Final Summary Judgment, the Court received Edwards’ pending request to allow his wife to send him legal mail he claims will support his position. (Doc. 220). The Court

must deny Edwards’ request. The Court already granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Edwards’ case is closed. (Doc. 219). It is unclear what information is in the legal mail or how it relates to Edwards’ claims. In recent filings, Edwards

seems focused on trying to show the officers did not have a good reason for stopping his car. (Doc. 218; Doc. 220). But that was never one of Edwards’ many claims – Edwards’ claims center on the alleged excessive force at the traffic stop and resulting arrest, not the validity of the original stop. Any

information Edwards seeks unrelated to his claims would not have affected the Court’s decision on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

Plaintiff Derick Edwards’ Request for a Court Order and/or Assistance (Doc. 220) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on January 13, 2023.

tite POLSTER otal UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies: All Parties of Record