Blair Clark v. David Bell

── Blair Clark v. David Bell ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 29, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-13645 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 1 of 15 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13645 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ BLAIR CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DAVID BELL, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:25-cv-00444-WFJ-SPF ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Blair Clark sued a police detective for allegedly misleading prosecutors into charging him with grand theft. The District Court dismissed Clark’s complaint, finding that the detective had “at least USCA11 Case: 25-13645 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 2 of 15 2 Opinion of the Court 25-13645 arguable probable cause” to suspect Clark had committed the crime. Because Clark failed to state a plausible claim for relief, we affirm. I. On February 21, 2025, Clark sued Detective David Bell of the City of Lakeland, Florida Police Department for one count of malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. According to Clark, Detective Bell filed a probable cause affidavit with the State Attor- ney’s Office that contained false, misleading, and incomplete infor- mation. Clark alleges the following facts in his complaint. In early 2022, Alicia Storer reported the theft of certain in- dustrial equipment, which she had been keeping on Clark’s prop- erty. The equipment included several forklifts, a “goose neck” trailer, a fiberglass utility bed, and a skid steer. The complaint fails to mention why Storer was keeping her equipment on Clark’s property, whether Clark agreed to watch over the equipment, or how long it was supposed to remain there. In any event, Storer told Detective Bell that her equipment was now missing, and that it was worth approximately $36,000. Detective Bell came to learn that Storer’s equipment was physically removed from Clark’s property by a man named Allan Kitto. Detective Bell interviewed Kitto, who explained that he was hired by Clark to remove the equipment, that he originally quoted Clark $18,000 for the removal, and that he agreed to accept receipt of some of the items in lieu of payment. Kitto then described the USCA11 Case: 25-13645 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 3 of 15 25-13645 Opinion of the Court 3 equipment as “junk” and “not worth more than $3,000.” As to why Kitto would have agreed to take $3,000 worth of “junk” in lieu of his $18,000 quote, the complaint leaves us without answer.1 Kitto also said that Storer told Clark the equipment be- longed to someone else. The complaint does not suggest why Storer would mislead Clark as to who owned the equipment or why the equipment’s ownership would impact Clark’s ability to dispose of it. But, apparently, Detecti