Opinion ID: 6341025
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the county’s liability

Text: First, Spradley contends the court should not have dismissed his claims against the County because it could be held liable for Frank failing to file and transferring his mandamus complaint. “[T]o prevail on a civil rights action under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that he or she was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law. Griffin v. City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001). Municipalities and other local government entities are “persons” within the scope of § 1983. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). To impose § 1983 liability on a municipality, a plaintiff must show: (1) “his constitutional rights were violated;” (2) “the municipality had a custom or policy that constituted deliberate indifference to that constitutional right;” and (3) “the policy or custom caused the violation.” 2 We review a district court ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion de novo. Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). A district court’s rulings on discovery matters are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Khoury v. Miami-Dade County Sch. Bd., 4 F.4th 1118, 1125 (11th Cir. 2021). We review a district court’s denial of a recusal motion for an abuse of discretion. Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir. 2004). “We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards applied by the district court.” Baas v. Fewless, 886 F.3d 1088, 1091 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks omitted). “Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). USCA11 Case: 20-14518 Date Filed: 05/16/2022 Page: 4 of 12