Filed Date: Oct. 19, 2000
Closed Date: July 20, 2006
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about a wrongful death where a Florida inmate died at the hands of a mentally ill co-inmate.
On October 19, 2000, plaintiff, a personal representative for his son, filed this lawsuit in United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Represented by Heyer & Associates, P.A., the plaintiff sued numerous defendants associated with the Broward County Detention Center in Florida after his son, a pretrial detainee, died at the hands of a mentally ill co-inmate. The detention center was subject to a consent decree from Carruthers v. Cochran (JC-FL-008) that required the jail to institute a system of classification, separation, and monitoring of inmates. The plaintiffs brought claims under §1983 and sought damages and attorneys' fees.
This case was assigned to Judge William J. Zloch.
On November 9, 2000, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
On January 3, 2001, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The court noted that a complaint cannot be dismissed merely because the plaintiff's claim does not support their stated legal theory. The court suggested that the legal issues raised might be "more properly addressed in a Motion for Summary Judgment," allowing the case to proceed forward.
On January 1, 2001, the court ordered the parties to go to mediation.
On January 18, 2002, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that replaced generic "John and Jane Doe" defendants with specifically named individuals. The plaintiff added the Superintendent of the North Broward Detention Center, Deputy Sheriffs, and medical personnel. The amended complaint included substantially more detailed factual allegations, particularly regarding psychiatric assessments and medical decision-making, and added two new §1983 causes of action that targeted the newly named supervisory and corrections personnel.
On April 18, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and raised qualified immunity as a defense, but the district court denied the motion on July 15, 2002. The court held that plaintiff adequately alleged deliberate indifference claims under the Fourteenth Amendment against all defendants and ordered the case to proceed with discovery. 2002 WL 3551421.
This denial prompted an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On May 28, 2003, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's ruling. For guard defendants, the court affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity and found that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged a Fourteenth Amendment violation based on deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm and that this violated clearly established law. However, for the supervisory defendants, the court reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity. The court found no sufficient allegations of a causal connection between the supervisors and the constitutional violation and noted that the supervisors had complied with consent decree requirements and that there were no allegations of custom, policy, or knowledge of the guards' specific misconduct that caused the harm. 326 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2003).
On September 22, 2003, the sheriff defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The following day, the supervisory defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
The parties attended mediation again and had hearings on November 6, 2003, and December 29, 2003. After an unsuccessful mediation, the parties continued to prepare for trial. The court set a jury trial for April 18, 2005, and then reset it for May 23, 2005.
On June 6, 2005, the court denied the defendants' two motions for summary judgment. The court found that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the municipal liability claims, noting that while such liability cannot be based on respondeat superior, it can be established through either an officially promulgated county policy or an official custom shown through repeated acts of a final policymaker. Material disputes existed regarding what the County Board knew about unconstitutional jail practices and when they acquired such knowledge, particularly given County Commissioner's acknowledgment that the County would "always be responsible ultimately for anything that happens with the jail" notwithstanding problematic reports. The court also rejected the medical defendants' motion, finding their characterization of Charles' behavior as "under control" was contradicted by the opposing party's evidence. 2005 WL 81673.
On June 6, 2005, a jury trial was held and the commissioner defendants asked to be dismissed.
On June 15, 2005, the court granted the commissioner defendants' oral motion to dismiss made at the commencement of trial. The court found that naming both the County and the sheriff in his official capacity was duplicitous and redundant, relying on precedent that official-capacity suits against a county sheriff effectively represent actions against the governmental entity itself. 2005 WL 8167638.
On January 13, 2006, the court granted the defendants’ motion to limit damages and apply the state law damages cap. The court granted both motions to limit damages and apply the Florida Wrongful Death Act provisions, finding that federal law was deficient regarding survival of § 1983 claims and that state law properly filled this gap without conflicting with federal policy. The court certified the order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to determine whether this ruling conflicts with federal law and Eleventh Circuit precedent.
On April 3, 2006, a jury trial began and ensued for nine days.
On April 4, 2006, the court dismissed all claims against defendants EMSA Limited Partnership and Prison Health Services, Inc. with prejudice.
On April 17, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint under FRCP 15(b). The complaint asserted that the defendants gave implied consent to negligence claims.
On July 20, 2006, the court ordered that the amendment pursuant to 15(b) was inappropriate because the defendants did not give implied consent to those claims being tried.
After plaintiffs presented their case in chief, the defendants made a motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). The court ruled there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for plaintiffs against any defendants. The court applied the deliberate indifference standard, which requires actual notice of substantial risk of serious harm. Even viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the court found that none of the defendants had the required actual notice. The evidence established only that the inmate had a "generally problematic nature" through fighting and exhibited signs of mental illness, but no witness believed Charles posed a threat of violence to other inmates prior to the murder. The court distinguished this from the required showing of awareness of a "particularized threat," ultimately dismissed the case in favor of all defendants on July 21, 2006. 200 WL 8448566.
On August 17, 2006, the plaintiff appealed (06-14631-EE).On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the district court erred by granting judgment as a matter of law to the defendants, excluding certain expert testimony and other evidence, and denying their motion to amend the complaint to conform to the trial evidence.
On July 30, 2008, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's rulings after oral argument and thorough review of the record and affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendants. 288 Fed.Appx. 20.
On September 3, 2008, the appellate court affirmed the district court's entry of judgment as a matter of law.
Summary Authors
Lauren Cutson (5/25/2005)
Haleigh Knowles (4/21/2026)
Carruthers v. Israel (Jonas v. Stack), Southern District of Florida (1976)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6349464/parties/cottone-v-jenne/
Hull, Frank M. (Georgia)
Heyer, Barbara A. (Florida)
Duignan, Christine M. (Florida)
Gregoire, Nancy (Florida)
Noe, Stephanie W. (Florida)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6349464/cottone-v-jenne/
Last updated April 21, 2026, 10:50 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 19, 2000
Closing Date: July 20, 2006
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The estate of Peter Anthony Cottone, Jr., an individual who died after being choked by another inmate at the North Broward Detention Center in Broward County, FL.
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
County
Broward County, FL
Private Entity/Person
EMSA Correctional Care, Inc.
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Unreasonable search and seizure
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Florida 0:00-cv-07545
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 02-14529
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 06-14631
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Assault/abuse by non-staff (facilities)
Case Summary of Cottone v. Jenne, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/59/ (last updated 4/21/2026).