FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T Aug . 20, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 11 20 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 0 8- 00 08 8- CV-T-3 3- TGW
ESSYE L. BROW

N,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st 20 , 20 09 )
Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:Ess y e L. Bro wn w a s em pl oyed by Trin it y Fo od Serv ic e (“ Trin it y ”), a fo od

se rv ic e co nt ract or fo r th e Hil ls bo ro ug h Co un t y Sh eri ff’s Offi ce. In Sep te m be r of
20 06 , whi le at th e jail whe re sh e wor ke d, B r o w n w a s se xu al ly as sa ul te d by Ran dy

P r a t t , a n e m

pl oyee of th e Sh eri ff’s Offi ce. Prat t was co nv ic te d of se xu al ba tt ery
fo ll ow i n g a cri m in al tri al

. Bro wn th en su ed Trin it y an d th e Hil ls bo ro ug h Co un ty
Sh eri ff’s Offi ce. The or ig in al co m pl ai n t al le ge d se xu al ha ras sm en t ag ai ns t th e 1
Sh eri ff’s Offi ce an d ret al ia ti on ag ai n s t Tr i n it y
. The co m pl ai nt was su bs eq ue nt ly

am en de d se ve ral ti m es
. The la st am en dm en t was al lo wed by le av e of t h e di st ric t

co ur t. In th e or de r gr an ti ng Bro wn’s m ot io n to fil e th e Fo ur th Am en de d Co m pl ai nt , th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed , “ th e pl ai nt iff is cau ti on ed th at an y fu rth er at te m pt s to am en d
th e co m pl ai nt wil l be di sf

av or ed , as sh e ha s ha d m or e th an am pl e op po rtu ni ti es to

st at e h er cl ai m .” (R.1 -5 0 a t 2 .)
The Fo ur th Am en de d Co m pl ai nt al le ge d th at th e Sh eri ff’s Offi ce ha d de pr iv ed

Bro wn of he r co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s gu aran te ed by th e Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se an d 42
U.S.C. § 1 98 1, (R .1-5 1 ¶ 17 ), an d t ha t Tri ni ty had bo th ret al ia te d ag ai ns t Bro wn fo r

co m pl ai ni ng of th e se xu al ha ras sm en t an d vi ol at ed he r rig ht s un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 81

. (Id

. ¶¶2 4- 25 .) Bro wn’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t Trin it y were di sm is se d wit h pr ejud ic e ba se d

Whether the Hillsborough County Sheriff’ s Offic e is a suable entity is a question we need 1 not addre ss. 2up on th e pa rti es ’ st ip ul at io n for di sm is sa l. The reaf te r, th e di st ric t cou rt gra nt ed th e
Sh eri ff’s Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . (R.1- 67 .)

Bro wn no w ap pe al s th e di sm is sa l of he r cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e S he rif f’s Offi ce.
Bro wn’s arg um en t on ap pe al is th at sh e sh ou l d ha ve be en affo rd ed an ot he r
op po rt u n i t y to am en d he r co m pl ai nt

. Bro wn co nt en ds th at , if sh e were al lo wed to

am en d he r co m

pl ai nt ag ai n, sh e co ul d st at e a vi ab le cl ai m ag ai ns t th e Sh eri ff’s Offi ce

un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3.
W e rev ie w th e de ci si on to di sm is s Bro wn’s Fo ur th Am en de d Co m pl ai nt wit h

pr ejud ic e fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Brew er -Gio rg io v. Pro du cer s Vid eo , In c. , 21 6 F.3 d
12 81 , 1 28 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 00 ); So sa v. Air pr in t S ys ., Inc

. , 1 33 F.3 d 14 17 , 1 41 8 (1 1t h
Ci r. 19 98 ).

W e fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n he re. Bec au se sh e ha d al read y be en al lo wed to

am en d he r co m

pl ai nt , Bro wn was no t en ti tl ed to am en d he r co m pl ai nt as a m at te r of rig ht , no twi th st an di ng th e fact th at th e Sh eri ff’s Offi ce ha d no t fil ed an an swe r to th e
Fo ur th Am en de d Co m

pl ai nt

. Se e Fed . R . C iv . P . 1 5( a)(1 ) (“ A p art y m ay am en d it s pl ead in g on ce as a m at te r of co ur se
. . . .”) The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d Bro wn’s
Fo ur th Am en de d Co m

pl ai nt on ly aft er warn in g Bro wn in a pr ev io us or de r th at fu rth er

am en dm en ts wou ld be fro wne d up on be cau se sh e ha d en joy ed am pl e op po rtu ni ti es

to st at e h e r cl ai m
. And , th e di sm is sa l oc cu rred th ree an d a ha lf m on th s aft er th e

3de ad li ne for am en dm en t of th e pl ead in gs im po se d by t he co ur t’s s ch ed ul in g o rd er.
At th at ti m e, Bro wn ha d no t res po nd ed to th e S h e r i f f ’s O ffi ce’s m ot io n to di sm is s
wit h a pr op os ed am en dm en t to th e co m pl ai nt

. Neit he r ha d sh e m ad e an y at te m pt to
sh ow go od cau se fo r he r fai lu re to am en d he r ad m it te dl y de fic ie nt Fo ur th Am en de d
Co m pl a i n t wit hi n th e pe rio d al lo wed by th e co ur t’s sc he du li ng or de r. The se fact s
pr es en t su ffi ci en t ba se s fo r di sm is sa l wit h pr ejud ic e. Se e So sa , 13 3 F.3 d at 14 18 -1 9.
Add it io na ll y , we a gr ee wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at an y fu rth er am en dm en t o f

Bro wn’s co m

pl ai nt wou ld ha ve be en fu ti le

. Bro wn di d no t pl ead fact s f r o m w h i c h
it co ul d pl au si bl y be in ferr ed th at th e Sh eri ff’s Offi ce ha d a cu st om or po li cy th at was
th e m ov in g fo rce be hi nd Prat t’s s ex ua l as sa ul t of Bro wn. Se e McDo wel l v. Bro wn , 39 2 F.3 d 12 83 , 12 89 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ). Mo re sp eci f i c a l l y, s h e can no t pl ead fact s

su ffi ci en t to rai se ab ov e th e sp ecu la ti ve le ve l her argu m en t th at th e Sh eri ff’s O ffi ce

was de li be rat el y in di ffer en t to th e ris k th at Prat t po se d to wom en
. Se e Bell Atl an ti c
Co rp

. v. Two mbl

y , 55 0 U.S. 54 4, 55 5- 56 , 12 7 S. Ct

. 19 55 , 19 64 -6 5 (2 00 7) ;
McDo wel l , 39 2 F .3d at 1 29 1.
AFFIR MED.

4