FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APR 13, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 35 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :1 0- cv -0 00 87 -RV-M D MARVIN LEE NETT LES, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us PENSACOLA POLICE DEPARTMENT, BOWE R, Serg ean t, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 13 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Marvi n Lee Nett le s ap pe al s pr o s e fro m th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 a m en de d c om pl ai ntag ai ns t the Cit y

of P en sa co laPo li ce Dep artm en t. On ap pe al , Nett le s co nt en ds hi s p le ad in g was su ffi ci en t t o

1 de m on st rat e a cl ai m

fora Fo urthAm en dm en t v io lati on be cau se he all eg ed Serg ean t Bo wer h ithi m

with h is po li ce crui se r an d thu s u se d e xc es si ve for ce. 2 Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm . 3 Und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 19 15 (e)( 2) (B)( ii ), a co urt s ha ll di sm is s a c as e p ro ceed in g in fo rma pa up er is “ atan y ti m e if th e co urt d et erm in es th at. . . th e act io n . . . fai ls to st at e a cl ai m

on whi chrel ie f m ay

be gra nt ed .” The s tand ard s g ov ern in g di sm is sa ls un de r Fed . R. Civ . P. 12 (b )(6 ) ap pl y to § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) (ii ). Alb a v . Mon tf ord , 51 7 F .3d12 49 , 12 52 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Pro se pl ead in gs are co ns tru ed li be ral ly. Id
.

The district cour

t liberally construed the defe ndant as the City of Pensac ola bec ause the 1 Pensacola Police Depa

rtment was not a le g al entity capa ble of be ing sue d. Dean v . Barber , 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 ( 11th Cir. 1992). Nettles has not ra ised either his Eighth Amendment claim or his cla im that the 2 Pensacola Police Depa

rtment violated his Four

th Amendment rights by

illega lly sear chinghis vehicle w ithout a warr ant and without his consent. The se cla ims are a bandoned. Harris v. United Auto. Ins. Group, Inc
. , 579 F.3d 1227, 1231 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 2009). Dismissal under § 1915(e )(2) (B )(ii) for failure to state a c laim is reviewe d de novo , 3 viewingthe alleg ations in the complaint as true. Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 ( 11th Cir. 2008). 2“ To es tabl is h acla im un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3, a p la in ti ff m us t p ro ve (1) a vi ol at io n o f a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht , and(2) th atth e al le ge d v io la ti on was c omm it te d by a pers on act in g u nd er co lo r of st at e la w.” Holmes v. Cr os by , 41 8 F .3d12 56 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Use o f ex ces si ve for ce i n m ak in g an arres t co ns ti tu te s a vi ol at io n o f th e Fo urthAm en dm en t. Dav is v. W il li ams , 45 1 F .3d75 9, 7 67 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Nett le s d idno t n am e Ser ge an t Bo wer (o r an y othe r po li ce o ffi cer) inhi s
am en de d c om

pl ai nt ; thu s, Bo wer was no t a p ro pe r de fen da nt . Mo reo ve r, th ere i s 4
no ba si s fo r ho ld in g the Cit y of P en sa co lali ab le . Nett le s’ am en de d c om pl ai nt do es no t al le ge th atth e Fo urth Am en dm en t v io la ti onoc cu rredpu rs ua ntto an y po li cy or c us to m

by the Cit y

of P en sa co la , des pi te th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s warn in g th athi s amend edco m

pl ai ntha d t o a ll eg e as m

uc h. Se e Lew is v. Cit

y o f West Palm Bea ch , Fla
. , 56 1 F .3d12 88 , 12 93 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (s ta ti ng a ci ty m ay be he ld li ab le un de r § 1 98 3 o nl y

if “ th e in jury caus edwas ares ul t o f m un ic ip al po li cy

or cu st om ”). Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in di sm is si ng Nett le s’
am en de d c om

pl ai ntforfai lu re t o s tate a cl ai m . AFFIRMED.
The mag istrate judg e instructed tha t all defe ndants be listed in the amende d complaint, 4 and stated that the amende d complaint would superc ede the orig inal complaint. 3