[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 21, 2010
No. 09-15900 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 09-21154-CV-PAS
MATTIE LOMAX,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF MIAMI MAYOR,
Manny Diaz, et al.,
Defendants,
OFFICER NUNEZ,
incarcerated for selling drugs,
OFFICER GARCIA,
SERGEANT BARALT,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(July 21, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Mattie Lomax, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of
her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, alleging that her civil rights were violated by the
City of Miami Mayor Tomas Regalado, the City of Miami Police
Department/Police Chief Miguel Exposito, Officer Nestor Francisco Garcia,
Sergeant Miguel Baralt, and former Officer Geovani Nuñez,1 in their official and
individual capacities. On appeal, Lomax argues that the district court erred in
dismissing her claims against the mayor, police department, and officers arising
out of her arrest for propping a stereo on top of two dairy cases. She was not the
registered owner of the cases’ name or mark, which constitutes a violation of
Florida Statute Section 506.508. She alleges that the officers mocked her arrest by
taking pictures of themselves with the dairy cases. The charges against Lomax
were dropped when the arresting officers, Garcia and Baralt, failed to show up at
Lomax’s hearing.
Although the conduct of which Lomax complains is, if true, unfortunate, her
alleged victimization at the hands of the police cannot surmount the officers’
1
Nuñez is currently serving a 135 month sentenced imposed pursuant to an unrelated
conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 846, conspiracy with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of
cocaine. See United States v. Nunez (Case No. 08-20651)
2
qualified immunity defense because, under the aforementioned Florida statute, they
had probable cause to arrest her.2 Thus the district court did not err in dismissing
the case.
AFFIRMED.
2
We review a dismissal based on qualified immunity de novo, accepting the
well-pleaded allegations as true and construing the facts in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. St. George v. Pinellas County, 285 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002).
3