Case: 18-11824 Date Filed: 02/07/2019 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-11824
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:17-cv-00430-WKW-DAB
DANIEL WEBSTER WILBORN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JAY M. JONES,
Lee County Sheriff,
DAVID C. MAYO,
Sergeant, in his official and individual
capacity,
TERRANCE MOORE,
Deputy, in his official and individual
Capacity,
Defendants - Appellees
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(February 7, 2019)
Case: 18-11824 Date Filed: 02/07/2019 Page: 2 of 6
Before MARCUS, BRANCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the district court’s order adopting a magistrate
judge’s Report and Recommendation that a motion to dismiss filed by defendants
Sheriff J. M. Jones and Sergeant David C. Mayo be granted. Plaintiff/Appellant
Daniel Webster Wilborn (“Wilborn”) filed a six-count civil rights complaint
alleging various violations of federal and state law. The relevant question before
the district court was whether Alabama law guarantees citizens a property interest
in police assistance to arrest or take mentally ill persons into custody to prevent
potential crimes. The district court concluded there was no such guarantee and
granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
I.
Specifically, Wilborn alleges that he sustained injuries from a neighbor-
relative, Darius Lashaun Wilborn (“Shaun”) because the police would not arrest
Shaun for domestic violence or request for an ambulance to transport Shaun to the
hospital. Shaun resided with his mother, and his mother activated a silent alarm
after Shaun began acting violently. After the officers arrived, Shaun assured the
officers that he was taking his medications, that he was going to his room, and that
there would be no problems. Shaun refused to leave the residence voluntarily.
Shaun’s mother left, and Wilborn arrived at the residence. Wilburn requested that
2
Case: 18-11824 Date Filed: 02/07/2019 Page: 3 of 6
the officers arrest Shaun, but they declined to do so. Wilburn tried to call an
ambulance, but because Shaun would not leave voluntarily, Sergeant Mayo
cancelled the ambulance request. The defendants explained to Wilburn that they
did not have probable cause to arrest Shaun. After the officers left the residence,
Shaun attacked Wilborn.
II.
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the complaint
against the legal standard set forth in Rule 8: “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
When evaluating a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court
must take “the factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Pielage v. McConnell,
516 F.3d 1282, 1284
(11th Cir. 2008). However, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the
allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678,
129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). “[A] plaintiff’s
obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more
than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555,
127 S. Ct.
1955, 1965 (2007).
3
Case: 18-11824 Date Filed: 02/07/2019 Page: 4 of 6
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127
S. Ct. at 1974). “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for
relief [is] … a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its
judicial experience and common sense.”
Id. at 679, 129 S. Ct. at 1950. Facial
plausibility exists “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. at
678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. The standard also “calls for enough facts
to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence” of the claim.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S. Ct. at 1965. While the complaint need not set
out “detailed factual allegations,” it must provide sufficient factual amplification
“to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Id. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at
1965.
III.
After reviewing the record and reading parties briefs, we conclude that the
district court properly dismissed this case under Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v.
Gonzales,
545 U.S. 748,
125 S. Ct. 2796 (2005). In Town of Castle Rock, the
Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of a complaint filed by a mother alleging that
police officers’ failure to enforce a domestic abuse restraining order, despite her
4
Case: 18-11824 Date Filed: 02/07/2019 Page: 5 of 6
repeated demands, resulted in her estranged husband murdering their
children. 545
U.S. at 751, 125 S. Ct. at 2800–01. The Supreme Court held that the officers’
alleged failure to enforce the restraining order was not a denial of the Due Process
Clause.
Id. at 768, 125 S. Ct. at 2810 (stating “the benefit that a third party may
receive from having someone else arrested for a crime generally does not trigger
protections under the Due Process Clause”). The Supreme Court did not defer to
the appellate court which looked to whether Colorado law had created a property
or liberty interest in the enforcement of restraining orders.
Id. at 756, 125 S. Ct. at
2803. Rather, the Supreme Court noted that federal constitutional law determined
whether an interest rises to the level of a “legitimate claim of entitlement”
protected by Due Process. Hence, the Supreme Court ultimately held that no such
interest existed due to the inevitable police discretion involved in arrest statutes.
Id. at 756, 125 S. Ct. at 2803 (stating “that a benefit is not a protected entitlement if
government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion.”).
As the plaintiff in Town of Castle Rock, Wilborn lacked property or liberty
interests in Shaun being taken into custody under Ala. Code § 22-52-91, which
provides a procedure for law enforcement officers when confronted with persons
believed to be mentally ill and posing a danger to themselves or others. Moreover,
the statute makes clear that the decision to arrest an individual or contact a mental
health officer on behalf of an individual is within the discretion of the attending
5
Case: 18-11824 Date Filed: 02/07/2019 Page: 6 of 6
officer. “Generally, arrests and attempted arrests are classified as discretionary
functions” under Alabama law. Telfare v. City of Huntsville,
841 So. 2d 1222,
1228 (Ala. 2002). Wilborn does not present any facts or legal authority to support
his claim that the defendants should have placed Shaun under arrest or that the
defendants lacked the discretion not to arrest Shaun. Accordingly, for the above
reasons, we affirm the district court’s order adopting a magistrate judge’s Report
and Recommendation that the motion to dismiss filed by defendants be granted.
AFFIRMED.
6
