[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-10732

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-03000-MHC

REGINALD A. WHITE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DEKALB COUNTY, 

County of Decatur, GA, 

JEFFERY MANN, 

Sheriff, Dekalb Co., 

DEBRA DEBERRY, 

Court Clerk, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(November 17, 2016)

Case: 16-10732 Date Filed: 11/17/2016 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Before MARCUS, JORDAN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Reginald A. White, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s sua sponte

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against a county and two of its employees 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Mr. White was arrested in January of 2014 in DeKalb County and charged 

with possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, giving a false name, and possessing

marijuana. According to Mr. White, all charges against him were dismissed on 

June 18, 2014, but he was not released from custody until August 16, 2014—more 

than fifty days after the charges were dismissed. Mr. White alleged that he was 

unlawfully confined in violation of his constitutional rights and in violation of a 

county release policy, which provided that an inmate whose criminal charges are 

dismissed must be released within 72 hours. Mr. White argues that the district 

court erred in finding he had failed to state a claim for false imprisonment against

DeKalb County, DeKalb County Sheriff Jeffery Mann, and Superior Court Clerk 

Debra Deberry. We disagree.

A district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint by a prisoner seeking 

redress from a governmental entity, officer, or employee if the complaint “is 

frivolous . . . or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted . . . .” 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b)(1). We review such dismissal for failure to state a claim de 

Case: 16-10732 Date Filed: 11/17/2016 Page: 2 of 5 
3

novo, taking the allegations in the complaint as true. Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 

1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 

2003)). 

A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and the plaintiff must 

plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when 

the plaintiff pleads 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 (2009). “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard 

than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” 

Boxer X, 437 F.3d at 1110.

We have held that, under certain circumstances, an incarcerated defendant 

may be deprived of his constitutional rights by prison officials for his continued 

detention beyond the date he was entitled to release. See Cannon v. Macon Cty., 1 

F.3d 1558, 1562–63 (11th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, dismissal of Mr. White’s claim 

was proper—for the reasons which follow.

The district court properly determined that Mr. White failed to state a claim 

for relief against the County. “[T]o impose § 1983 liability on a municipality, a 

plaintiff must show: (1) that his constitutional rights were violated; (2) that the 

Case: 16-10732 Date Filed: 11/17/2016 Page: 3 of 5 
4

municipality had a custom or policy that constituted deliberate indifference to that 

constitutional right; and (3) that the policy or custom caused the violation.” 

McDowell v. Brown, 392 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing City of Canton 

v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989)). Mr. White has failed to allege that a County 

custom or policy caused a violation of his constitutional rights—rather, he argued 

that a County release policy was not followed in his case.

The district court also properly determined that Mr. White failed to state a 

claim for relief against Sheriff Mann and Clerk Deberry. A claim of false 

imprisonment under § 1983 “requires a showing of common law false 

imprisonment and a due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment.” 

Campbell v. Johnson, 586 F.3d 835, 840 (11th Cir. 2009). “The elements of 

common law false imprisonment are an intent to confine, an act resulting in 

confinement, and the victim’s awareness of the confinement.” Id. The Fourteenth 

Amendment includes the “right to be free from continued detention after it was or 

should have been known that the detainee was entitled to release.” Id.

A supervisory official may be held liable in his individual capacity under 

§ 1983 for the unconstitutional conduct of a subordinate if the supervisor directly 

participated in the unconstitutional conduct or if a causal connection existed 

between the supervisor’s acts and the constitutional violation. Keith v. DeKalb 

Cty., Georgia, 749 F.3d 1034, 1047–48 (11th Cir. 2014). A causal connection may 

Case: 16-10732 Date Filed: 11/17/2016 Page: 4 of 5 
5

be established when a custom or policy results in deliberate indifference to 

constitutional rights; when a supervisor directed the subordinate to act unlawfully 

or knew the subordinates would act unlawfully and failed to stop them from doing 

so; or when a history of widespread abuse notified the supervisor of the need to 

correct the unconstitutional conduct, but he failed to do so. Campbell, 586 F.3d at 

840. 

Mr. White asserted, without more, that Sheriff Mann, as the individual “in 

charge” of all inmates held in the DeKalb County Jail, and Clerk Deberry, as the 

person responsible for transmitting notices of disposition of charges to the jail, 

must be held accountable for his alleged false imprisonment. Mr. White, however, 

did not allege that Sheriff Mann and Clerk Deberry intended to keep him confined 

following dismissal of his criminal charges or that they acted in a way that resulted 

in his continued confinement. Nor did he allege facts indicating that Sheriff Mann 

and Clerk Deberry can be held liable for false imprisonment due to their 

supervisory roles. See Campbell, 586 F.3d at 840.

Upon careful review of the record and consideration of Mr. White’s brief, 

we conclude that Mr. White failed to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Mr. White’s

§ 1983 action. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-10732 Date Filed: 11/17/2016 Page: 5 of 5