[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 15241 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:14

- cv - 00510

- SDM

- TBM JOE LEE SORENSEN, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus CHRIS NOCCO, Sheriff, Pasco County Sheriff Office, BRENDA CASE, Dr.; Pasco Sheri ff

- Medical Section, NURSE BURKE, Pasco Sheriff

- Medical Section, NURSE CLEARY, Pasco Sheriff

- Medical Section, Defendants

- Appellees, DEPUTY MEIRIS, et al., Defendants.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (January 26, 2017) Case: 15-15241 Date Filed: 01/26/2017 Page: 1 of 62 Before MARCUS, MARTIN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Joe Sorensen appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Sorensen was a pretrial detainee when he was attacked by another detainee. He b rought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , alleging that he did not receive constitutionally sufficient medical care. The district court dismissed Sorensen’s claims against Sheriff Chris Nocco, the only remainin g defendant, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

. 1 The court held that Sorensen failed to allege Sheriff Nocco was personally involved in , or deliberately indifferent to , the denial or delay of medical

care , or that a policy or lack of training at the jail caused the alleged violation of his co nstitutional right to medical care

. After careful review, we affirm.
I. Sorensen was a pretrial detainee at Pasco County Detention Center (“PCDC”) when he was attacked by another detainee on June 10, 2012. 2 He was examined by a nurse at PCDC

. He told the nurse he had been hit in the face and thought “his face [was] broke[n]

. ” On June 11, he visited a doctor at PCDC , who

1 The other defendants were either dismissed earlier in the liti gation or not properly served. 2 The following facts are alleged in Sorensen’s complaint

. T hey are accepted as true for the purposes of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Brooks v. Warden , 800 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2015)

.

Case: 15-15241 Date Filed: 01/26/2017 Page: 2 of 63 referred him to get an X

- ray . The radiology report recommended a CT scan because of the possibility of a fracture. On June 21, Sorensen was transported to Pasco Regional Medical Center for a CT scan, which showed fractures of the orbital rim and cheekbone. On June 27, he was taken to Oak Hill Hospital, where a doctor diagnose d a fracture with displacement that “is already over two weeks old and [] needs to be reduced and fixed A.S.A.P.

. . . before fibrous union makes it impossible to correct it.” The doctor also said “[ i ] t will take some time ” for “nerve function to return, if it does return.” On June 29 , Sorensen underwent surgery, wh ich included placing two plates and nine screws on the right side of his face. Sorensen all eges PCDC did not have a policy regarding medical emergencies involving head and face injuries at the time he was attacked . He also alleges PCDC failed to train it s deputies for such a situation. He claims that
because of t h ese failure s , Sheriff Nocco was grossly negligent or deliberately indifferent to his constitutional right to medical care. Sorensen had to wait almost three week s to receive surgery , despite co nstantly requesting immediate medical

care . Sorensen alleges he still has pain and numbness attributable to the delay in his medical care.
II.

“ We review de novo a district court’ s dismissal of a complaint, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim for relief . . . .”

Case: 15-15241 Date Filed: 01/26/2017 Page: 3 of 64 Starship Enterprises of A tlanta, Inc. v. Coweta Cty. , 708 F.3d 1243, 1252 (11th Cir. 2013) . “[W] e accept all factual allegations as true and consider them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. ” Br ooks , 800 F.3d at 1300. “ Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed. ” Tannenbaum v. United States , 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)

. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factua l matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw t he reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged

. The plausibi lity standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a c omplaint pl eads facts that are merely consistent wit h a defendant ’ s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibili ty of entitlement to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quotation omitted).
Sorensen a rgues that his complaint alleges two claims against Sheriff Nocco: (1) that Sheriff Nocco failed to have policies and train deputies regarding medical emergencies to the head or face, and (2) that Sheriff Nocco personally participated in the constitutiona l deprivation because he was informed through various reports of Sorensen’s injuries and failed to take the necessary steps to get immediate
medical care for Sorensen

. Sorensen’s complaint contains no allegations that Sheriff Nocco personal ly participated in the alleged constitutional deprivation

.

Case: 15-15241 Date Filed: 01/26/2017 Page: 4 of 65 Thus, Sorensen’s argument against Sheriff Nocco for his personal participation do es not meet “ the threshold requirement of [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 8(a)(2) that the plain statement possess enough heft to show that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 5 44, 557, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1966 (2007) (quotation omitted and alteration adopted).
Sorensen’s remaining argument , which is reflected in the allegations of the complaint , is regarding Sorensen’s claim against Sheriff Nocco in his official capacity as sheriff of the PCDC for failure to have policies or training regarding medical emergencies to the head or face

. A plaintiff seeking to hold a municipal
actor liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must prove that official municipal policy was responsible for the action that caused his injury. Connick v. Thompson , 563 U.S

. 51, 60

– 61, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1359 (2011) . “ In limited ci rcumstances, a local government’ s decision not to train c ertain employees about their legal d uty to avoid violating citizens’ rights may rise to the level of an official government policy for purposes of § 1983. ” Id. at 61, 131 S. Ct. at 1359. “[A] municipality ’ s failure to train its employees in a r elevant respect must amount to deliberate indifference to the r ights of persons with whom the untraine d employees come into
contact.” Id. (alteration adopted and quotation omitted). “ Deliberate indifference is a stringent standard of fault, requiring pro of that a municipal actor disregarded a known or obvious consequence of his action.” Id. , 131 S. Ct. at 1360 (alteration

Case: 15-15241 Date Filed: 01/26/2017 Page: 5 of 66 adopted and quotation omitted). To establish deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must show that the municipal “policymakers are on a ctual or constructive notice that a particular omission in their training program causes [municipal] employees to violate citizens’ constitutional rights.” Id. To show this notice, a plaintiff ordinarily must demonstrate “[a] pattern of similar constitut ional violat ions by untrained employees.” Id. at 62, 131 S. Ct. at 1360; accord Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’ s Office , 792 F.3d 1313, 1328 (11th Cir. 2015)

. Sorensen alleges only that policies and training were not in place and that this oversight led to constitutionally deficient delays in his medical care. q Assuming his allegations are true, as we must, they are still insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Sorensen’s complaint makes no allegations that Sheriff Nocco was on actual o r constructive notice of the omission s in training or lack of policies

. See Weiland , 792 F.3d at 1328

– 29 ; Craig v. Floyd Cty. , 643 F.3d 1306, 1310 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to impose liabi lity against a municipality.” (quotation omitted)). Instead, the complaint discusses only Sorensen’ s own deficient treatment. Therefore, the district court’s dismissal of Sorensen’s complaint was correct.
AFFIRMED . Case: 15-15241 Date Filed: 01/26/2017 Page: 6 of 6