### FI LED U . S . COURT OF APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT OC TOBER

21 , 2 004 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1438 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00011 -CV -A R-S TERRY LEE PASSMORE SWANN , as A dm ini str at or

of the E sta te of Merr i Eliza

beth Passm ore, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us SOUTHERN HEAL TH PARTNERS, INC., De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r t h e N o rt h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( O ct obe r 21, 200 4 )
Be fo re BI RC H , BA RKE T T a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. COX , C ircuit Judg e: T he P la int if

f, T er ry L ee P as sm or e Sw an n (“ Sw an n” ), e xe cu tor of the e sta te of Me rr i E liz ab eth P as sm or e, appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t f or the D ef en da nt,2

So uth er n He al th P ar

tne rs , I nc . ( “ SH P” ). T he c ourt gr an te d th e D ef en da nt’ s m oti on to d ism iss the P la int if

f’ s se co nd a m en de d c om pla int f or f ai lur e to s at isf

y the he igh te ne d pl ea ding st an da rd appl ic ab le to cl ai m s br ough t un de r 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83 (1 988)
. B ec au se w e co nc lud e tha t the he igh te ne d ple ad ing standard is not appl ic ab le in a § 1 9 8 3 ac t i on against a no n-governm ental entity that cannot raise qualified im m uni ty a s ade fe nse , w e re ve rs e an d r em an d f or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs. I. FA CT S A

ND PRO CE DU RAL HI ST ORY The f acts alleged in the com

plain t m ay b e su m

m arize d as follows. Merr i E liz ab eth P as sm or e (“ de ce de nt ”) w as inc ar ce ra te d a t the Bl ount Co unty D et en tio n Center f rom January 3, 2001, until January

9, 2001. SH P, a private corporation, had
co ntr ac te d w iththe S he rif f of Bl ount Co unty a nd/ or Bl ount Co unty to pr ovi de
m ed ic al c ar e to inm at es a t the Bl ount Co unty D et en tio n C en te r. Whil e inc ar ce ra te d, the de ce de nt re pe at ed ly re porte d to SH P’ s em plo y ee s at the de te nti on c en te r tha t sh e ha d no t ur ina te d inse ve ra l day s, but w as not giv enaur ine te st unti l January 7, 200 1. SH P sta ff re ce ive d the re sul ts of de ce de nt’ s tes t on Ja nuary 8, 200 1, a cknow le dgi ng tha t sh e ha d a n in fe ct ion , but de ce de nt w as sti ll not tr ea te d. O n Ja nuary 9, de ce de nt be cam e dis or ie nte d a nd w as r el ea se d onar ec ogni zanc e bond a nd s en t t o the
em ergency

room at t he Blount Cou nty Medical Ce nter. The decedent wa s transferr edPla int if f’ s in iti a l c omp la int

a sse rt e d c la ims a g a ins t L arr y E. Sta nto n in his of fi c ia l c a pa c ity 1 o n l y. P l a i n t i f

f am e n d e d t h e c o mp l a i n ti no r d e r

t o n am e S t an t o ni nh i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y o n l y. Th e reaft er, th e dis tr ic t c ourt g ra nte d St anto n’ s mo tio n to dis mis s, fi nd ingthat he wa s e nti tle d to qu a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y. 3 to Me dic al Ce nte r E as t i n B irm ing ha m , A la ba m a, w he re she w en t i nto ac om a an d died on Jan uary

25, 2001, due to acute renal f ailure. Swan n fi le d a n a ct io n i n t he di st ric t co ur t as se rti ng cla im s u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 1 9 8 3
. I n h i s i n i t i a l c o mp l a i n t , S w a n n n a med a s d e f e n d a n t s S H P , Ge o r g e t t e De n n y, Bl ount Co unty Sh er if

f L ar ry E
. St an ton , and a

m ed ic al doc tor

ide nti fi ed

a s L
. G ew in. 1 The district court granted SHP ’ s m otion to dism iss the Plaintiff’ s first am ended
co m pla int f or f ai lur e to c om

ply w iththe E le ve nthCi rc uit ’ s he igh te ne d pl ea din g standard appl ic ab le to ac tio ns bro ught unde r § 1983. T he c ourt gave the P la int if f the oppo rt uni ty to fi le a nothe r co m

pla int w ith in te n day s of the c ourt’ s or de r, pr ovi din g the P la int if

f w itha nothe r ch an ce to “ co m ply [] w ith the hig he r ple ad ing standard s enunc ia te d in O lad

ei nde v . Ci tyof

B irm ing ham , 963 F. 2d 1481 ( 11th C ir
. 199 2) , a nd alleg[e] fact s re fl ectin g deliberate indiffere nce and rea ching th e level of a constitu t i o nal violatio n.” (R. 1-22 at 1.) T he Plaintiff then filed a second am ended
co m pl ai nt na m in g S HP as th e o nl y de fen da nt .4

The district court deter m ined th at “ [a] lthou gh the concept of qualified im m uni ty is not a va ila ble to So uth er

n H ea lth , a s a

de fe nse , S outhe rnH ea lthis the beneficiary

of the heightened pleadin g standard appli c a bl e t o a l l claim s brough t under 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83. ” ( R. 1- 31 a t 1. ) T he c ourt c onc lud ed th at th e Pl ainti ff

’ s se co nd
am en de d c om

pla int did not m ee t this standard , gr an te d S H P’ s m oti on t o di sm iss the Pl ai nti ff ’ s se co nd a m en de d c om

pla int , a nd e nte re d j udgm en t f or the D ef en da nt. II. ISSUE ON APPEAL AND STA NDARD OF REVIEW T he sol e iss ue on a

ppe al is w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in ap ply ing a he igh te ne d plea din g st an da rd to a § 19 83 a ct iona ga ins t a pr iva te e nti ty

tha t c oul d no t
as s er tqu al i fi ed i m

m u n i t y as a d ef

en s e. We re v i ew d e n o v o a d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s dis m iss al und er Ru le 12( b) (6 ) fo r fa ilure to s ta te ac la im , a cc ep tin g th e al le ga tio ns i n the com plaint as true and construin g them in the ligh t m ost favorable to the plainti ff. H ill v . W hit e , 321 F. 3d 13 34, 1335 (11t h Cir. 2003 ).

III. DISC USSION A ppe llant c ont en ds tha t the U nit ed S ta tes Su

pr em e Co ur

t’ s de ci sio n in Le ath erm an v. Ta rra nt Co unt y Na rc oti cs I

nte lli ge nc e & Co ordi nat ion U

nit , 507 U. S. 163, 11 3 S. Ct
. 116 0 ( 1993 ), pr ohi bit s th e ap pli ca tio n of ahe igh te ne d pl ea din g standard to § 19 83 a ct ion s a ga ins t pr iva te en tit ie s, li ke S H P, w ho c an not r ai se qu al ifi ed i mm

un it y as a de fen se . Und er Fe de ral Ru le of C iv il Pro ced ur e 8 (a)( 2) , a5

com plaint on ly

need contain “ a short and plain statem ent of the claim showing that the ple ad er

is en tit le d to r el ie f. ” I n Le ath erm an , the S uprem e Court held that a court
m ay not appl y ahe igh te ne d pl ea din g st an da rd m or e str ing en t tha n the usu al ple ad ing
re qui re m en ts o f Ru le 8 in ci vil ri ght s ca se s all eg ing m uni ci pa l lia

bil ity unde r § 198 3. 507 U.S . a t 164, 113 S. Ct. at 1161. T he Court rej ected re spon dent’ s argum ent that
a m unicipalit y

shoul d enjoy

the sam e heightened plea d i ng stand ard granted governm ent officials protected from suit by qualified im m unity
. The C ourt
ac know le dge d th at

m uni ci pa lit ie s are a ff

or de d c er ta in p ro te ct ion s f

ro m li ab ili ty – a
m unicipalit y

cannot be held liable on a respondeat superior theory but only wher e a
m unicipal po licy

or custom

caused t he constitu tional injury
. 507 U.S . a t 166, 113 S. Ct
. a t 11 62. H ow ev er , pr ote ct ion fr om li ab ili ty doe s no t e nc om

pa ss i m m uni ty f ro m suit
. Whe re a

§ 1983 claim

is asserted against a m unicipalit y , only

the liberal ple ad ing standard s of R ule 8( a) (2 ) ap ply
. 507 U
. S. a t 16 8, 113 S
. Ct
. a t 11 63. Pri or to Le ath erm an , t hi s c i r c ui tr e c og ni z e d ah e i gh t e ne d pl e a di ng s t a ndar d br oa dly appl ic ab le in § 19 83 a ct ion s. I n O lad ei nde , f o r e x amp l e, we s t at ed t h at “ [i ]n ple ad ing ase ct ion198 3 a ct ion , som e fa ct ua l de ta il is ne ce ssary

. . . . [ T ] his he igh te ne d R

ule 8 r equir em en t – as th e la w of the c ir cu it – m

ust be appl ie d by

the dis tr ic t cour

ts . . . . ” 963 F. 2d a t 14 85; see also A rnold v. Bd. of Educ. , 880 F
. 2d 3 05, 310 (1 1th Ci r. 198 9) ( “ T y pic al ly , Ru le 8 i s a

ppl ie d m or e ri gid ly

to al le ga tio ns o f6

co nspi ra cy

a nd a bsol ute im

m unity, an d to cl ai m s pl ea d a ga ins t a loc al gov er

nm en t that the challenged cond uct constitu tes its official policy or custom .” ). U nde r the pr io r pa ne l r

ule , w e ar e boun d by

the hol din gs o f earl ie r pa ne ls
un le ss an d un ti l th ey are clea rly ov erru le d en ban c orby the Supr em e Co ur t. United Sta tes v . Sm ith , 122 F.3 d 13 55, 135 9 ( 11th C ir
. 199 7)
. “ Whil e anint er ve nin g de ci sio n of

the S upr em e Co urt c anove rr ule the de ci sio n of

apr ior pa ne l of our c ourt, th e Su prem e Court decision m ust be clearly

on poi nt.” G arr et t v . U niv
. of A la. at B irm ing ham B d. of Tr
. , 344 F. 3d 1288, 1292 ( 11th C ir
. 200 3) ; se e als o F la. L eague of P rof’l Lo bby ist

s, In c. v. M

eg gs , 87 F
. 3d 4 57, 462 ( 11th C ir
. 199 6) ( “ [W ] e ar e not at li be rty to dis re ga rd

bin din g c as e la w tha t i s so c los el y on poin t and ha s bee n on ly
w eake ne d, r athe r than di re ct ly ove rr ule d, by the S upr em e Co urt. ”)
. T hus, w e ha ve no a utho rity to overturn the Oladeinde an d A rnol d li ne of c as es unl es s Le ath erm an ov ert ur ne d t he m . W e now addre ss for the fist tim e the im pact of Le ath erm an on the la w of thi s circuit. While O lad

ei nde a nd A rnol

d do sug gest a broad application o f a heightened pleading st andard in all § 1 9 8 3 ca s es , w e agre e w ith the Appellant that tho se cases we re e ffec tively

overturned by

the Le ath erm an Co ur t. Le ath erm an m ade it clear that
an y he igh te ne d pl ea din g r equir em en ts in § 1983 a ct ion s a ga ins t e nti tie s th at c an not raise q u al i fied im

m unityas a def

ense are im

proper. While m

unicipalit ies are7

p r o t e c t e df

r o m l i ab i l i t y t o s o me e x t e n t , t h e y e n j o y n o i mmu n i t y f

r o m s u i t . T h e s a me reasoning is app licable in § 198 3 suits against non-go vernm ental entities not entit led to qu al ifi edimm

un it y . Se e W

ya tt v. Co le , 504 U
. S. 158, 167- 69, 112 S. Ct
. 182 7, 1833 -3 4 ( 11th C ir
. 199 2) ; B uc kn er v . T oro , 116 F
. 3d 45 0, 45 2 ( 11th C ir
. 199 7) (“ Whe n apr iva te e nti ty

. . . c ontra ct s w ithac ounty to pr ovi de m ed ic al se rv ic es to inm at es , it

pe rf orm s af unc tio n tr ad iti ona lly

w ith in the e xc lus ive pr er oga tiv e of the sta te . I n so doi ng, it be co m es the f unc tio na l e qui va le nt o f the m uni ci pa lity . ” (c ita tio ns om itt ed )). The pa rti es a gr ee tha t a s apr iva te e nti ty , S H P is n ot e nti tle d to a sse rt a qualified imm

unitydefense. T herefor e, under Le ath erm an , b e c a u s e S H P cannot

r ai se qualified imm

unityas a def

ense, t he Plaintiff need not satisfy any heightened ple ad ing r equir em en ts whe n a sse rt ing § 19 83 c la im s a ga ins t i t. A ppe lle e co nte nds, how ev er , tha t ca se s ha nde d dow n by thi s c ourt su

bse que nt to Le ath erm an ha ve c ont inu ed to re co gni ze a he igh te ne d plea din g re qui re m en t in § 1983 a ct ion s a

ppl ic ab le in ca se s in vol vin g no t on ly ind ividu al de fe ndants , but a lso
en ti ti es un ab le to ass ert qu al ifi edimm un it y a s a d efen se . If th atwere t he cas e, we
w oul d be boun d by the pr ior pa ne l r ule to co nti nue to re co gni ze abr oa dly appl ic ab le he igh te ne d pl ea din g st an da rd in § 19 83 a ct ion s. A ny suc h ho ldi ng c oul d on ly be
co rrec te d by th e en ba nc co ur t o r th e Su pr em e Co ur t. Sm ith , 122 F
. 3d a t 13 59. B ut, th e p rio r pa ne l r u l e d o e s no t ex te nd to di ct a. Tagle v . R egan , 643 F
. 2d 1 058, 106 48

(5 th C ir
. 198 1) ; see also G reat L akes Dredge & Dock Co. v . M iller , 957 F
. 2d 1 575, 1578 (11th C ir. 1992 ) (dicta “ is neither the law of the case nor binding p rece dent”). A s di sc uss ed

be low, w e fi nd n oth ing in our pos t- Le ath erm an prece dent, other than dic ta , a cknow le dgi ng a

he igh te ne d pl ea din g st an da rd in a § 19 83 a ct iona ga ins t a
non- im m une de fe ndant. W e re co gni ze tha t so m e of our de ci sio ns s ubse que nt t o Le ath er m an we re
m isl ea din g. I n G

JR I nv es tm en ts, I

nc . v . Co unt

y of E sc am bia , 1 3 2 F
. 3 d 1 3 5 9 ( 11t h Ci r. 199 8) , f

or e xa m ple , the c ourt st at ed : [T ] his c ir cu it, a lon g w ithoth er s, ha s ti ght ened the appl ic at ionof Ru le 8 w ithr es pe ct

to § 1983 c as es in ane ff ort t o w ee d ou t no nm er ito ri ous cl ai m s, r equir ing that a

§ 19 83 pla int if

f al le ge w ithsom e spe ci fi ci ty the fa ct s w hic h m ak e out

it s c la im
. S om e fa ct

ua l de ta il in the ple ad ing s is ne ce ssary to the ad

j udi ca tio n of § 1983 c la im s. T his is part ic ula rlytru e in c as es inv olv ing qua li fi ed im m uni ty , w he re w e m

ust de te rm ine whe th er a d efen da nt ’s act io ns vi ol at eda cl earl y est ab li sh edrig ht
. 13 2 F 3d
. at 13 67 (em

ph as is ad de d) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)
. GJ R inv olv ed

f our E sc am bia Co unty of fi ci al s’ c ha lle nge of a distri ct co urt orde r de ny ing the ir m oti ons to d ism iss th e p la in ti ff’s § 19 83 cla im s ag ai ns t t he m o n q u a l ifi edimm un it y gro un ds
. Id . a t 1361 -64. While Escam

bia County , an entity not entit led to qualified imm unity , had be enapa rty

in the or igi na l a ct ionin the dis tr ic t c ourt, it w as not apa rty to the appe al
. Id
. at 1361 n.1. So, the e ffec t of Le ath erm an on o ur pr ec ed en t w as not , a nd c oul d no t ha ve be en , a n is sue on a

ppe al
. T houg h the la ngua ge quot ed ab ove sug ge sts tha t the9

heightened p le ad ing stand ard applicable in § 1983 actions is no t lim ited to cases in vo lv in g q ua li fie d i m

m un it y , any suc h s ug ge st io n was di ct a. G JR o n l y ad dressed the na rr ow q ue sti on o f w he the r the f our ind ivi dua l de fe ndants w er e im pr ope rl y de ni edqu al ifi edimm

un it y . Id
. a t 13 65. T he oth er

pos t- Le ath erm an de ci sio ns c ite d by the Appe lle e ar e si m ilarl y li m it edqu al ifi edimm

un it y de ci si on s i nv ol vi ng on ly ind iv id ua l d efen da nt s. Se e, e.g ., G onza le z v . R en o , 325 F. 3d 12 2 8 (11th Cir. 2003) (deter m ining whether

three indiv idual defendants were entitled to q ualified im m unity ); Co tto ne v. J

en ne , 326 F. 3d 13 52 (11th Cir. 2003 ) (deter m ining whether

six ind ividu al defendant s wer e en tit le d to qua lif

ie d im m uni ty ); D alr

ym ple v . R en o , 3 34 F. 3d 9 91 ( 11th C ir
. 200 3) (determ ining only

whet h er Attorney

Ge neral Janet Re no was entitled to qualified im m uni ty ). T he D ef

en da nt h as no t ca lle d to our a tte nti on any

opi nio n, sub se que nt to L e a th e rm an , a ppl y ing ahe igh te ne d pl ea din g st an da rd in a ca se inv olv ing de fe ndants tha t c oul d no t r ai se qua lif ie d im m uni ty a s ade fe nse . A t l ea st tw o of our post - Le ath erm an cases have in fa ct rec ogni zed that the height ened pleading st andard is o nly appl ic ab le in § 1983 suits ag ai nst ind ivi dua ls to wh om qua lif ie d im m uni ty is
av ai la bl e. Se e, e. g. , La uri e v. A la. Co urt of Cri m . A ppe als , 256 F
. 3d 1 266, 127 5- 76 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( “‘H e i g h t e n e dp l e a d i n g i s t h e l a w o f t h i s c i r c u i t ’ w h e n § 1 9 8 3 c l a i ms
ar e as se rt ed ag ai nst gove rn m en t of fi ci al s in the ir ind ivi dua l ca pa ci tie s. ”) ( ci tin g GJ

R ,10

1 3 2 F
. 3 da t1 3 6 7
- 68) ; Kyl e K. v . Ch apm an , 208 F
. 3d 9 40, 944 ( 11th C ir
. 200 0) (r ec ogni zi ng “ he igh te ne d pl ea din g r equir em en t a ppl ic ab le to se ctio n 1983 a ct ion s against ind ividu al governm ent officials”). U nde r the c ir cu m stanc es , w e ar e n ot bound by the pr ior pa ne l r ule to fo llo w di ct a whi ch ha s s pe ci fic al ly been reject edby the S u pr em e Co ur t. Le ath erm an overturned our prior dec i s i o n s t o the extent that thos e case s required a heightened pl e a di ng s t a nd a r d i n § 19 83 a c t i on s a ga i ns te nt i t i e s t ha tc a nn ot r a i se qua lified im m uni ty as ade fe nse . O ur

pos t- Le ath erm an pr ec ed en t does not re qui re a dif fe re nt
res ul t. IV. CONCLUSION W e the re fo re RE V E RS E the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt and R E MA N D the action so that the court m ay evaluate th e sufficiency of the Plaintiff’ s second am ended
co m pl ai nt wit ho ut ap pl y in g a he ig ht en edpl ead in g s ta nd ard
. REVERSED AND REMANDED.