Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-15638/USCOURTS-ca11-14-15638-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Qadiyr Sadiq
Appellant
Harold J. Weller
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-15638

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-03441-MHS

QADIYR SADIQ, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

HAROLD J. WELLER, 

Fire Chief, Individually and Personal Capacity,

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(July 30, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 14-15638 Date Filed: 07/30/2015 Page: 1 of 4
2

Qadiyr Sadiq, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal with 

prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Harold J. Weller, Chief of the 

City of Fairburn Fire Department, in his individual and personal capacity, for 

failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The 

complaint alleged that Sadiq’s house burned down due to inadequate water 

pressure and the fire department’s failure to check for hot spots, which he 

attributed to Weller’s incompetence, thus depriving Sadiq of his property in 

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. On appeal, Sadiq 

argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint for failure to state a 

claim and in dismissing the complaint without first providing him with an 

opportunity to amend.

We review dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, accepting the facts 

alleged in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to 

the plaintiff. Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). We generally 

review the denial of an opportunity to amend for an abuse of discretion, but we 

review questions of law, such as whether amendment would be futile, de novo. 

Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007).

Although a complaint need not set forth detailed factual allegations, the 

plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to render the claim “plausible on its face.” 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). A 

USCA11 Case: 14-15638 Date Filed: 07/30/2015 Page: 2 of 4
3

plausible claim for relief requires pleading “factual content that allows the court to 

draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 

alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). 

“Ordinarily, a party must be given at least one opportunity to amend before the 

district court dismisses the complaint.” Id. at 1014. However, an opportunity to 

amend need not be given if amendment would be futile. Id.

To avoid dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege facts 

demonstrating that he was deprived of a constitutional right by a person acting 

under color of state law. Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256, 1258 (11th Cir. 2005). 

“Absent the existence of an underlying constitutional right, no section 1983 claim 

will lie.” Wideman v. Shallowford Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 826 F.2d 1030, 1032 (11th 

Cir. 1987). 

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state 

shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” 

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. The United States Supreme Court has clarified that 

“[t]he Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State’s power to act, not as a 

guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security.” DeShaney v. 

Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 195, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1003 

(1989). Thus, “the Due Process Clause[] generally confer[s] no affirmative right to 

governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or 

USCA11 Case: 14-15638 Date Filed: 07/30/2015 Page: 3 of 4
4

property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual.” 

Id. at 196, 109 S.Ct. at 1003. 

As the Supreme Court made clear in DeShaney, the Due Process Clause 

confers no affirmative right to governmental services. Thus, Sadiq failed to state a 

cognizable due process claim, as there is no constitutional right to fire protection. 

Therefore, Sadiq could not prevail in a § 1983 action against Weller under any 

version of the facts, and amendment would have been futile. Accordingly, the 

district court did not err in dismissing Sadiq’s complaint with prejudice for failure 

to state a claim.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 14-15638 Date Filed: 07/30/2015 Page: 4 of 4