As Riou is also a minister, he was making a video likely designed to give to his followers.

He was in the park 1-1/2 hours after sunset making a video?

(a) No person shall be or remain in any part of any park that is fenced in or provided with gates between the closing of the gates at night and their reopening on the following day; nor shall any person be or remain in any park not fenced in or provided with gates, between sunset and sunrise or as specifically posted, except in areas designated as twenty-four- hour boat launching areas, and except that persons and vehicles may pass through such parks without stopping, on the most direct walk or driveway leading from their point of entrance to the exit nearest to their point of destination.

He was in the park at 7:00pm. Sunset that day was 5:24pm. The cop was correct. I don't care if it wasn't posted or that Mr. Riou didn't know. Someone in the park after closing is suspicious. Someone sitting in a spotlight for six minutes, on a park bench, after closing, is doubly suspicious.

He was in the park at 7:00pm. Sunset that day was 5:24pm. The cop was correct.

Gee, how about just letting the guy leave?

As the video shows, Llanes began to tell Riou that the park was closed to which Riou responded, “yes sir. I’ll close out then,” noting that he was making the video.

Riou was polite and listened to everything the officer was saying, but the officer attacked him anyway.

When the only tool you have is a hammer...

The guy was polite and respectful, he didn't deserve to be assaulted.

Gee, how about just letting the guy leave?

He had that opportunity for six minutes while the cop's spotlight was shining on him. What did he want -- a written invitation?

to which Riou responded, “yes sir. I’ll close out then,”

He lied. He didn't "close out", did he? He kept recording. Why?

My guess is that he wanted to provoke the cop on camera so he'd have grounds for a lawsuit. And lo and behold, he filed one.

My money is on the minister collecting on the city in a large way.

http://miamidade.fl.elaws.us/code/coor_ptiii_ch26_arti_sec26-1

Miami - Dade County
Code of Ordinances
Part III. Code Of Ordinances
Chapter 26. Park And Recreation Department Rules And Regulations Article I. In General

§ 26-1. Rules and regulations adopted

- - - - - - - - - -

Rule 3. Roads and driveways within parks

(a) No person driving, operating, controlling or propelling any vehicle, motorized, horse drawn or self-propelled, shall use any other than the regularly designated paved or improved park roads or driveways, except when directed to do so by a police officer or department employee. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the use of any self-propelled wheelchair, power wheelchair, electric scooter, or other mobility device by an individual with a mobility impairment.

(b) No driver operator of any vehicle shall obstruct traffic or park or stop on any road or driveway except at a place so designated or in case of an emergency beyond his control. If so caused to stop or park for more than fifteen (15) minutes the operator shall report such fact to an officer or park employee. At places so designed and clearly marked, a vehicle may be stopped for a period of no more than fifteen (15) minutes in order for the occupant to view the scenic features.

(Ord. No. 59-14, Rules, Art. 2, § 3, 6-16-59; Ord. No. 96-95, § 1, 6-18-96)

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.miamidade.gov/parks/alonzo-kelly.asp

Alonzo Kelly Park

Address
1455 NW 67 Street, Miami, FL

Hours of Operation
Sunrise to Sunset

Park Office
305-836-5095

- - - - - - - - - -

[TFTP Article] The incident unfolded when Riou was sitting on a bench in Liberty City’s Alonzo Kelly Park....

For six minutes, officer Ioannys Llanes shined a spotlight toward Riou before exiting his vehicle and assaulting the innocent man.

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/miami-police-sued-after-officer-ioannys-llanes-roughs-up-army-veteran-oscar-julien-riou-on-video-11181147

Miami Police Sued After Roughing Up 63-Year-Old Army Vet for Sitting in a Park

Jerry Iannelli | May 24, 2019 | 4:26pm

Around 7 p.m. last December 10, Miami resident Oscar Julien-Riou — a 63-year-old Army veteran, retired nurse, and minister — was sitting in Liberty City's Alonzo Kelly Park alone with his phone in his hand.

[...]

It was after sunset in December. The park was closed. Use of a spotlight indicates it was dark, as does the video.

As the suit notes, Miami-Dade County's own signage didn't clearly explain the time the park closed.

The cop indicated that the park was closed. There is no indication that Oscar Julien-Riou was hearing impaired.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/28301350/JulienRiou_v_Llanes_et_al

The federal COMPLAINT of 5/23/2019 was dismissed 5/24/2019.

"ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint, filed by Oscar Julien-Riou; Amended Complaint due by 5/29/2019."

Docket 8 shows that on May 29, 2019:

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice by Oscar Julien-Riou (Attachments:# 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Williams, Rawsi) (Entered: 05/29/2019)

And the docket report shows:

Civil Case Terminated, per 8 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. Closing Case. (ps1) (Entered: 05/29/2019)

My guess is that he wanted to provoke the cop on camera so he'd have grounds for a lawsuit.

Highly unlikely. He was polite and respectful to the cop.

Oscar Julien-Riou, 63, honorably served his country for 20 years and retired from the Army, he then became a nurse and continued to serve his country by treating fellow veterans at the VA Clinic.

Yeah - major felon ya got there whitey. Your applause for cops for assaulting innocent citizens let alone veterans is reprehensible

Officer: This park is closed sir.

Citizen: Oh, it is? I'll pack it up and go.

Officer: Have a nice evening.

That used to be the case back when America was still a free country. Nowadays, cops are trained to view everyone as a criminal.

Even an elderly veteran doing nothing more than sitting on a park bench.

Scuffle ensues.

" Ninety nine out of a hundred citizens viewing this video will see nothing but an out-of-control, super authoritarian copper with some strange personal axe to grind.

My money is on the minister collecting on the city in a large way. "

Agree. Was an over zealous officer.

" Yeah - major felon ya got there whitey. Your applause for cops for assaulting innocent citizens let alone veterans is reprehensible "

Agree !

Officer: Did you just drop something? Citizen: No. (Starts to leave)

Seriously?

The officer then accuses Riou of dropping something. However, there was nothing to be dropped and police would quickly realize this. Instead of admitting they made a mistake, the officer arrested Riou on false charges of resisting arrest, according to the lawsuit.

the officer arrested Riou on false charges of resisting arrest, according to the lawsuit.

On the video it sure seemed to me that he was resisting.

However, according to your rules, he's allowed to resist because (as it turns out later) he dindo nuffin.

Sorry. It don't work that way.

On the video it sure seemed to me that he was resisting.

Of course it did.

When has it ever not?

Then you come to realize that you're dealing with certified assholes.

Then you come to realize that you're dealing with certified assholes.

On the video it sure seemed to me that he was resisting.
Of course it did.

Because he was.

Most of us are aware however that that brand of thinking may be alive and well just next door.

I can only bear the present state of affairs in the apprehension that the majority of my neighbors find such a state of mind abhorent.

2) If you break the law, follow the instructions of the law enforcement officer. If he's wrong, you'll have your day in court.

It's that simple.

And that, as it turns out, is not so simple.

Have yourself a good day.

[Deckard] On the video it sure seemed to me that he was resisting. Of course it did.

[misterwhite] Because he was.

It should be noted that the Charge Type was "RESIST OFF W/O VIOL" and the charge Disposition was "NOLLE PROS."

Resistance does not necessarily connote any degree was violence.

Instead of admitting they made a mistake, the officer arrested Riou on false charges of resisting arrest, according to the lawsuit.

The Court rejected the Complaint five days before the article was written, and had numerous reasons to do so:

First, Plaintiff raises Section 1983 claims against the City of Miami Police Department. It is well-established that police departments cannot be sued under Section 1983. See Trapp v. Sanchez, No. 08-CV-22267, 2009 WL 2338117, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 28, 2009) (holding the “plaintiff cannot proceed on a claim against the Miami–Dade Police Department because police departments cannot be sued in a federal civil rights action. In Section 1983 actions, police departments cannot be sued, because a police department is merely an administrative arm of the local municipality, and is not a separate judicial entity.”) (citation omitted)). Indeed, in Florida police departments are not legal entities subject to being sued. See Fulkerson v. Russell, No. 3:17-cv-560-J-34JRK, 2017 WL 6041954, at *2–3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2017) (citing cases). Plaintiff is advised to review any amended complaint to ensure it complies with applicable law.

Second, while the Court will not rigorously screen the Complaint at this time, a cursory review of the Complaint suggests Plaintiff could better formulate his allegations to provide Defendants sufficient notice of the claims for relief being asserted. A shotgun pleading makes it “virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief.” Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996). Shotgun pleadings “fail . . . to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015) (alteration added; footnote call number omitted). Plaintiff’s counsel is advised to review the four types of shotgun pleading highlighted in the Eleventh Circuit’s Weiland decision before filing an amended complaint.

Finally, while this District’s Local Rules do not appear to have specific spacing requirements for documents filed through CM/ECF (see Local Rule 5.1(b)), the undersigned and many of her colleagues have adopted Local Rule 5.1(a)(4)’s requirements for conventionally-filed documents to also apply to documents filed through CM/ECF. That Rule states that all documents “shall have not less than one and one-half (1½) spaces between lines.” Id. The irregular spacing throughout the Complaint, which at times is clearly less than one and one-half spacing, makes it difficult for the Court to parse through the allegations. In an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall comply with the spacing requirements of Local Rule 5.1(a)(4).

Attorney Rawsi Williams started numbering her paragraphs on page 4.

In the caption, on pages 1 and 2, and in paragraph 10, the Complaint indicates that Plaintiff Mr. Riou "sues Defendant LLANES in his individual capacity."

In paragraph 6, the Complaint indicates that, "Upon information and belief, and at all times material hereto, Defendant LLANES participated in the unconstitutional violations and other wrongful acts that occurred on December 10, 2018 at approximately 7 PM, at which time he was acting in the course and scope of his employment under color of state law."

If the Officer acted within the scope of his employment at all times, he is covered by limited immunity and cannot be sued in his individual capacity.

Paragraph 96 of the Complaint indicates that,

LLANES knew or should have known that MR. RIOU was non-threatening when MR. RIOU complied with LLANES’ order to leave the park.

Paragraphs 143, and 164 of the Complaint indicate that,

"MR. RIOU complied with LLANES’ order to leave the park."

Compliance with an order to leave the park indicates that he left the park.

However, paragraphs 152 and 173 of the Complaint indicate that,

LLANES unlawfully prevented MR. RIOU from leaving the area of the park bench where MR. RIOU was sitting and Alonzo Kelly Park itself and confined MR. RIOU to the park and back of the police car handcuffed pursuant to LLANES’ unlawful arrest against MR. RIOU’S WILL and without MR. RIOU’S consent or permission.

The Complaint three times (¶¶ 29, 239, 240) erroneously cites a Miami City Ordinance to argue that Alonzo Kelly Park was closed from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and that "The police department shall cause proper notice to be placed in the main entrances to the city parks, playgrounds and properties referred to in the preceding section, warning the general public that such properties are closed during the hours therein recited."

Of course, Alonzo Kelly Park was not a City park, but a County park. The signage appearing above with the article is also Exhibit A of the Complaint. It reads, "WELCOME TO YOUR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PARK," and "RULES & REGULATIONS ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE TO CHAPTER 26, COUNTY ORDINANCE 01-35, CIVIL PENALTIES 8-CC."

The hours cited in the Complaint are erroneous, the cited Ordinance is for City parks, and City police are not required by the City ordinance to maintain signage at County parks.

The shotgun pleading just goes on and on, finally ending at page 62. When the Court dismissed it and required a refiling by May 29, 2019, defendant's attorney filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint [Docket 6]. She screwed that up too, resulting in Docket 7 by the Court:

PAPERLESS ORDER denying 6 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend due to the failure to submit a proposed order, as is required by the Local Rules. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga (CMA) (Entered: 05/29/2019)

One might think the attorney would know the local rules for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It appears to be the only Federal court she has been admitted to practice before.