Opinion ID: 47002
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Summary Judgment and Dismissal1

Text: We review de novo a dismissal under § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim. Leal v. Dep’t of Corr., 254 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001). A pro se complaint “should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 10, 101 S.Ct. 173, 174, 1 As an initial matter, summary judgment was proper for those claims against the Board and the defendants in their official capacities, as those claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 97-102, 104 S.Ct. 900, 906-09, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984); Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Beach St. Corp., 208 F.3d 1308, 1311 (11th Cir. 2000). Anderson also made vague allegations that his Thirteenth Amendment right was violated by involuntary servitude and that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to deprive him of his rights. On appeal, he does not raise these issues, and, therefore they have been abandoned. Rowe v. Schreiber, 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n.1 (11th Cir. 1998). 6 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980). We also review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Skrtich v. Thorton, 280 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002). To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must prove (1) a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 2254-55, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988).
To the extent that Anderson raises a negligence claim for the individual defendants’s failure to perform their duties, that claim has no merit. Section 1983 requires more than negligence. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-33, 106 S.Ct. 662, 664-66, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986). Additionally, to the extent that Anderson asserts that Ray or the Board are responsible for the actions by Henderson and Collins, § 1983 does not provide for liability under a theory of respondeat superior.2 Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct.2018, 2036, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Griffin v. City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1307 (11th Cir. 2001). 2 The question remains whether the supervisors could be liable independently under § 1983. Greason v. Kemp, 891 F.2d 829, 836 (11th Cir. 1990). Because the basis for the supervisors’s liability in this case would require an analysis of the alleged due process violation, and Ray, as the supervisor, is a party to the instant case, this inquiry merges with the merits of the due process claim discussed more fully below. 7
The district court improperly determined that Anderson raised these issues for the first time in his reply brief; a liberal reading of his complaint clarifies that he did allege equal protection and Eighth Amendment violations in his amended complaint. Nevertheless, summary judgment was proper on these claims.3 First, Anderson cannot establish an equal protection violation for the manner in which the Board calculated his tentative release date or his guidelines and severity level because he offers no evidence that he was treated differently than other similarly situated inmates. See Jones v. Ray, 279 F.3d 944, 946-47 (11th Cir. 2001); Fuller v. Georgia State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 851 F.2d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 1988). Second, because Anderson did not allege that he was mistreated in prison or that the prison conditions offend society’s notions of decency, he has not stated an Eighth Amendment claim. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1976, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). To the extent that he complains of his treatment while under arrest, the proper avenue of relief is pursuant to Fourteenth Amendment’s due process protections.4 Tittle v. Jefferson County Comm’n, 10 F.3d 1535, 1539 n.3 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc). 3 This court may affirm on any adequate grounds even if those grounds differ from the district court’s. Parks v. City of Warner Robins, 43 F.3d 609, 613 (11th Cir. 1995). 4 Notably, the standards are the same as under the Eighth Amendment. Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1024 n.5 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc). 8 Nevertheless, Anderson failed to establish that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his needs. Because the crux of his argument pertains to officials’s alleged deliberate indifference to his right to a hearing, it will be addressed in the context of his due process claim below.
To establish a claim for retaliation, Anderson must show, inter alia, a causal connection between his protected conduct and the harm complained of. Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1248-49 (11th Cir. 2003). As the record demonstrates, the alleged due process violation occurred several years before Anderson filed his suit, and, therefore, Anderson cannot establish that connection. To the extent that Anderson asserts that his treatment under the guidelines system was in retaliation for his filing a lawsuit, Anderson has proffered no evidence to support this claim. A review of Anderson’s history in the system shows that he was treated in the same manner throughout his revocation of parole proceedings. Moreover, as there is no liberty interest or right to parole, Sultenfuss v. Snow, 35 F.3d 1494, 1503 (11th Cir. 1994), Anderson cannot show that the differences in his ability to obtain parole during earlier incarcerations was a violation of his rights or was the result of his decision to file a lawsuit. 9
Anderson’s due process claim is limited to the denial of a preliminary hearing after his arrest for suspected parole violations. Under the Constitution, a parolee is entitled to certain due process protections before revocation of his parole, including the right to a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to believe a violation had occurred and a final hearing to determine if revocation is appropriate. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 484-88, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2602-03, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). Here, the appellees admitted that Anderson did not waive his right to a hearing and that he did not receive a hearing as required to satisfy due process concerns when he was arrested in January 2001. Thus, the only question is what remedy was appropriate. The district court determined that the only remedy to which Anderson was entitled was the quashing of the arrest warrant. Anderson contends that he was entitled to monetary damages. This court has held that members of the parole board are entitled to quasijudicial immunity for suits seeking monetary damages. Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2005) (applying immunity to suit by parolee who was arrested and incarcerated based on erroneous allegations of parole violations); Fuller, 851 F.2d at 1310. Therefore, although the district court did not address the issue of 10 monetary damages when it determined that Anderson had received the appropriate remedy, summary judgment was proper on the alternate ground that Ray was immune from suit for monetary damages. Finally, because the only parties relevant to the false imprisonment claim were Henderson and Collins, and they never received service of process, we need not address whether Anderson was subject to false imprisonment.