Court Opinion

ID: 9377037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-06 18:01:02.155137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:11.439776
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 20-14867   Document: 32-1    Date Filed: 03/06/2023   Page: 1 of 10

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit
                         ____________________

                               No. 20-14867
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

        JAMES DARYL WEST,
                                     Plaintiff-Appellant,
        versus
        MARK INCH,
        Secretary,
        MICHELLE SHOUEST,
        USC,
        WARDEN, EVERGLADES CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
        JANICE HILLS,
        Health Service Administrator,
        OSCAR ORTEGA,
        Chief Health Officer, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 20-14867        Document: 32-1        Date Filed: 03/06/2023        Page: 2 of 10

        2                         Opinion of the Court                     20-14867

                                              Defendants-Appellees.

                               ____________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Florida
                       D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-20953-CMA
                             ____________________

        Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                James West, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
        the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his second amended civil
        rights complaint for failure to state a claim. He argues that the dis-
        trict court erred in dismissing his complaint and in ruling that he
        had failed to sufficiently allege Eighth Amendment violations—de-
        liberate indifference to his medical needs and safety—as to certain
        defendants (Daniel Conn, Department of Corrections Secretary
        Mark Inch, Janice Hills, Warden Barry Morris, and Michelle Schou-
        est). As explained below, we affirm.1

        1
         Mr. West brought suit against Secretary Inch in both his individual and offi-
        cial capacities. His claims against each of the other defendants, however, are
        against them solely in their individual capacities.
USCA11 Case: 20-14867     Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 03/06/2023    Page: 3 of 10

        20-14867               Opinion of the Court                       3

                                         I
               As alleged in the second amended complaint, and as set forth
        in the attached exhibits, Mr. West had chronic osteoarthritis and a
        “tiny plantar calcaneal spur.” He therefore wore orthopedic shoes.
        By mid-2017, his shoes had become “worn out” and lost traction.
        When that had happened some years earlier, in 2014, he had been
        issued “size 9 3C boots #1.”
               Because of his worn shoes, Mr. West twice slipped and fell
        on wet floors, injuring himself. The falls took place on June 2 and
        12 of 2017. Mr. West had made attempts to obtain new shoes be-
        fore falling, including speaking with various people—including
        some of the defendants—and filing grievances, but his requests
        were always ultimately denied. Those denials—which we describe
        in more detail later as necessary—formed the basis of the deliberate
        indifference claims.
               The district court dismissed Mr. West’s second amended
        complaint. It concluded that Mr. West failed to state a deliberate
        indifference claim against Ms. Hills and Warden Morris for the fail-
        ure to provide him new shoes and that at most he alleged negli-
        gence on their part. The court dismissed the individual and official
        capacity claims as to Secretary Inch because Mr. West did not al-
        lege, respectively, that Secretary Inch was personally involved or
        that there was a continuing violation of federal law. The court dis-
        missed the claims against Ms. Schouest because Mr. West did not
        demonstrate that she “responded to a known risk or serious harm
        in an unreasonable manner” or that there was anything more than
USCA11 Case: 20-14867        Document: 32-1        Date Filed: 03/06/2023        Page: 4 of 10

        4                         Opinion of the Court                     20-14867

        negligence. Finally, the court dismissed the claim against Mr. Conn
        because Mr. West did not allege that he was personally involved. 2
                                              II
               We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of
        an in forma pauperis complaint for failure to state a claim under
        28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), viewing the factual allegations in the
        complaint as true. See Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1159–60
        (11th Cir. 2003). We use the same standard for dismissals under
        § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as under Rule 12(b)(6). See Mitchell v. Farcass,
        112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997).
               Pleadings should contain “a short and plain statement of the
        claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
        8(a)(2). A written exhibit attached to a pleading is considered part
        of the pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c).
              To survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), a pleading must
        contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Bell Atl. Corp.
        v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A plaintiff must state
        “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
        Speaker v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 623 F.3d 1371,
        1380 (11th Cir. 2010). A facially plausible claim allows a court to

        2
         The district court allowed Mr. West to file a third amended complaint assert-
        ing claims as to two defendants who are not relevant to this appeal. He did
        not do so.
USCA11 Case: 20-14867      Document: 32-1       Date Filed: 03/06/2023     Page: 5 of 10

        20-14867                Opinion of the Court                         5

        draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the mis-
        conduct alleged. See id.
               We hold a pro se pleading to a less stringent pleading stand-
        ard than a counseled pleading. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
        94 (2007). But even though pro se pleadings are liberally construed,
        they still must suggest some factual basis for a claim. See Jones v.
        Fla. Parole Comm’n, 787 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 2015).
                                          III
               Federal law provides a cause of action for private citizens
        against state actors for violating their federal constitutional and
        statutory rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In order to state a claim
        under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under
        color of state law deprived him of a federal right.
                                          A
               The Eighth Amendment prohibits deliberate indifference by
        prison officials to any substantial risks of serious harm to prisoners.
        See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). “[D]eliberate in-
        difference has three components: (1) subjective knowledge of a risk
        of serious harm; (2) disregard of that risk; (3) by conduct that is
        more than mere negligence.” McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248,
        1255 (11th Cir. 1999). A mistake in judgment does not rise to the
        level of deliberate indifference. See Mann v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 588
        F.3d 1291, 1308 (11th Cir. 2009). A showing that harm resulted,
        without more, does not satisfy the burden for deliberate indiffer-
        ence. See id. The plaintiff must ultimately show that the official
USCA11 Case: 20-14867      Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 03/06/2023     Page: 6 of 10

        6                      Opinion of the Court                20-14867

        both was “aware of the facts from which the inference could be
        drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed]” and drew
        the inference. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. A prison official’s “failure
        to alleviate a significant risk that he should have perceived but did
        not” is not an Eighth Amendment violation. See id. at 838. A pris-
        oner claiming deliberate indifference therefore “has a steep hill to
        climb.” Keohane v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr. Sec’y, 952 F.3d 1257, 1266
        (11th Cir. 2020).
               At this stage of the proceedings, of course, Mr. West does
        not need to prove his Eighth Amendment claims. To stave off dis-
        missal, he only needs to state claims that are plausible under
        Twombly and its progeny. For example, in Mitchell v. Nobles, 873
        F.3d 869, 876 (11th Cir. 2017), we held that a prisoner had set out a
        plausible Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference by al-
        leging that the defendants knew that he had hepatitis C and cirrho-
        sis but refused to provide him with any treatment.
                                         B
              With these standards in mind, we turn to the claims of Mr.
        West against the defendants involved in this appeal.
              Mr. Conn. Mr. West alleged that Mr. Conn, who was in
        charge of prison operations, was deliberately indifferent because he
        “was responsible” for the policies that caused his injuries. The dis-
        trict court correctly concluded that Mr. West failed to state a claim
        as to Mr. Conn because he did not allege that Mr. Conn had any
USCA11 Case: 20-14867      Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 03/06/2023      Page: 7 of 10

        20-14867                Opinion of the Court                         7

        knowledge of the state of his shoes. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837-
        38; McElligot v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248, 1255 (11th Cir. 1999).
               Secretary Inch. Mr. West asserted both individual and offi-
        cial capacity claims against Secretary Inch. He alleged that Secre-
        tary Inch was indifferent in his official capacity because Secretary
        Julie Jones (the former Department of Corrections Secretary) was
        aware of a policy that kept costs low by denying requests like his
        own request for replacement shoes. Mr. West, however, made no
        allegations as to Secretary Inch’s personal capacity actions.
                The district court correctly dismissed the individual capacity
        claim against Secretary Inch for the same reason the claim against
        Mr. Conn was dismissed—Mr. West did not allege that Secretary
        Inch had any personal knowledge of his particular situation. As to
        the official capacity claim, Mr. West did not allege that the pur-
        ported policy itself constituted a constitutional violation, only that
        it led to deliberate indifference by others. That claim therefore fails
        as well.
               Ms. Hills. Mr. West alleged that Ms. Hills was indifferent
        because she knew about his shoes’ poor condition and did not au-
        thorize new shoes because of the prison’s budget policy. The at-
        tachments to the second amended complaint show that Mr. West
        filed two grievances that Ms. Hill denied on May 9, 2017, and June
        1, 2017. Ms. Hills explained that “Medical does not issue shoes for
        your issue. Athletic shoes are available through the canteen.” And
        she told Mr. West that a “pass” for footwear was written by the
        provider for medically-issued footwear and that a review of his
USCA11 Case: 20-14867        Document: 32-1       Date Filed: 03/06/2023       Page: 8 of 10

        8                        Opinion of the Court                    20-14867

        medical chart indicated that medical shoes were “not medically
        necessary.”
                Both grievances—in which Mr. West requested new ortho-
        pedic shoes because his current shoes had lost traction—were filed
        and denied before Mr. West’s first fall on June 2, 2017. Mr. West
        also filed a third grievance—asking for a pass to get laundry shoes—
        that Ms. Hills denied on June 11, 2017, the day before his second
        fall. 3
               Mr. West did not allege any facts that show or suggest that
        Ms. Hills knew of and disregarded of the risk of serious harm to
        him based on the condition of his shoes when she rejected his re-
        quest for new shoes. The medical note attached to the complaint
        concerning Mr. West’s need for special shoes was from 2014, and
        Mr. West made his request for new shoes in mid-2017, about three
        years later. His allegations did not rise above mere negligence or
        mistake on her part in failing to consider and address the risk pre-
        sented by bad traction on shoes. The district court correctly dis-
        missed the claim against Ms. Hills. See Bismark v. Fisher, 213 F.
        App’x 892, 897 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding, at summary judgment,
        that a prison doctor was not deliberately indifferent in failing to
        provide special orthopedic shoes to a prisoner—as recommended

        3
          Ms. Hills denied another grievance filed by Mr. West on June 20, 2017. In
        that grievance Mr. West had asked for authorization to allow a friend to buy
        him orthopedic shoes, but Ms. Hills said that the medical team could provide
        such authorization and he would need to contact Warden Morris.
USCA11 Case: 20-14867       Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 03/06/2023      Page: 9 of 10

        20-14867                Opinion of the Court                          9

        by an outside podiatrist—and instead recommending that the pris-
        oner purchase sneakers at the canteen to remediate his foot condi-
        tion); McGann v. Coombe, 1997 WL 738569, at *2 (2d Cir. 1997)
        (prison officials did not act with deliberate indifference in failing to
        provide prisoner with orthopedic shoes prescribed by a podiatrist,
        as their actions constituted a difference in medical judgment). Cf.
        McLaughlin v. Hart, 664 F. App’x 135, 138 (3d Cir. 2016) (prison
        officials not deliberately indifferent in denying prisoner’s request to
        purchase orthopedic shoes from his desired vendor).
               Warden Morris. Mr. West alleged that Warden Morris was
        similarly indifferent because on June 9, 2017—after his first fall—
        and then on June 23, 2017—after his second fall—he spoke with
        Warden Morris regarding his need for replacement shoes. Accord-
        ing to Mr. West, Warden Morris knew about the poor condition of
        his shoes, yet did not override the refusal to authorize the order for
        his new shoes.
               Just as with his claim against Ms. Hills, however, Mr. West
        failed to allege that Warden Morris disregarded a risk of serious
        harm. Mr. West concedes that during his conversation on June 9,
        2017, Warden Morris “stated he would e-mail Janice Hills concern-
        ing the shoes condition.” Based on Mr. West’s own allegations,
        Warden Morris’ reaction was not deliberately indifferent. Warden
        Morris may have been negligent in not following up, but negli-
        gence is not deliberate indifference.
               We further note that we need not consider the significance
        of the second conversation because Mr. West’s injuries occurred
USCA11 Case: 20-14867       Document: 32-1         Date Filed: 03/06/2023       Page: 10 of 10

        10                        Opinion of the Court                    20-14867

        prior to it. In other words, Warden Morris’ alleged knowledge and
        conduct following the second conversation were not the cause of
        any injuries to Mr. West. In sum, the claim against Warden Morris
        was properly dismissed.
               Ms. Schouest. Mr. West alleged that Ms. Schouest was de-
        liberately indifferent because she “was personally involved in deny-
        ing [Mr. West’s] request for relief.” But Mr. West did not allege
        that she knew of the worn condition of his shoes. He therefore did
        not allege enough to plausibly state a claim of deliberate indiffer-
        ence as to Ms. Schouest. 4
                                             III
               In sum, the district court did not err in dismissing Mr. West’s
        deliberate indifference claims against Mr. Conn, Secretary Inch,
        Ms. Hills, Warden Morris, and Ms. Schouest.
               AFFIRMED.

        4
         Mr. West also argues that the district court erred in dismissing Wexford
        Health Sources, Inc., as a defendant, but Wexford had never been a defendant.
        The district court made no such error.