Court Opinion

ID: 9365239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-23 16:01:04.444188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.932118
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12121   Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 01/23/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                              [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                               No. 22-12121
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       LEROY LEE FIGURES,
                                                    Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       JOSEPH GORDON,
       Officer investigator in his individual and official capacity,
       OKALOOSA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE NARCOTICSUNIT,
       Official capacity,
       MICHELLE NICHOLASON,
       Spokesperson individual capacity,
       JOHN DOES,
       JANE DOES,
       SHERIFF, OKALOOSA COUNTY,
USCA11 Case: 22-12121      Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 01/23/2023     Page: 2 of 7

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12121

                                                     Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-00838-LC-HTC
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Leroy Figures, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district
       court’s order dismissing his pro se complaint with prejudice for fail-
       ure to state a claim. Liberally construed, Figures argues on appeal
       that the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed his
       third amended complaint because the affidavit in support of a
       search warrant for his home was invalid and he alleged sufficient
       facts to support his claims. For the following reasons, we affirm.
                                         I.
              We review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for fail-
       ure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) de novo and ap-
       ply the same standard of review as for dismissals under Federal
       Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Leal v. Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 254
       F.3d 1276, 1278–79 (11th Cir. 2001). We take the allegations in a
       complaint as true and construed “in the light most favorable to the
USCA11 Case: 22-12121      Document: 19-1       Date Filed: 01/23/2023     Page: 3 of 7

       22-12121                Opinion of the Court                          3

       plaintiff.” Leib v. Hillsborough Cnty. Pub. Transp. Comm’n, 558
       F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2009).
               “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
       pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally con-
       strued.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th
       Cir. 1998). We generally do not consider arguments raised for the
       first time on appeal because the district court never had a chance
       to examine them. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d
       1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004).
                                          II.
               Section 1915A of the Prison Litigation Reform Act provides
       that “[t]he court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any
       event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil
       action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental en-
       tity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C.
       § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss
       the complaint, or any portions thereof, that are frivolous, mali-
       cious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek
       monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
       Id. § 1915A(b). “A complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to
       state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show the plaintiff is
       not entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).
               To properly state a claim for relief, “a complaint must con-
       tain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
       relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
USCA11 Case: 22-12121       Document: 19-1       Date Filed: 01/23/2023      Page: 4 of 7

       4                        Opinion of the Court                   22-12121

       678 (2009) (quoting 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 infer-
       ence that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
       However, “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of ac-
       tion will not do,” and the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to
       raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550
       U.S. at 555. “[A]n amended complaint supersedes the initial com-
       plaint and becomes the operative pleading in the case.” Lowery v.
       Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1219 (11th Cir. 2007).
              Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, no person acting under color of state
       law shall deprive another of his constitutional rights. 42 U.S.C.
       § 1983. “In order to 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).
               “It is well established in this Circuit that supervisory officials
       are not liable under § 1983 for the unconstitutional acts of their sub-
       ordinates on the basis of respondeat superior or vicarious liability.”
       Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting
       Hartley v. Parnell, 193 F.3d 1263, 1269 (11th Cir. 1999)), abrogated
       in part on other grounds by Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir.
       2010). “Instead, supervisory liability under § 1983 occurs either
       when the supervisor personally participates in the alleged uncon-
       stitutional conduct or when there is a causal connection between
USCA11 Case: 22-12121      Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 01/23/2023     Page: 5 of 7

       22-12121                Opinion of the Court                         5

       the actions of a supervising official and the alleged constitutional
       deprivation.” Id.
                “[T]he Fourth Amendment requires that warrant applica-
       tions contain sufficient information to establish probable cause.”
       Holmes v. Kucynda, 321 F.3d 1069, 1083 (11th Cir. 2003). The in-
       formation contained in a warrant affidavit need not be objectively
       accurate, but the affiant must believe or accept that it is true. Id. A
       misstatement in an officer’s warrant affidavit amounts to a Fourth
       Amendment violation if (1) there was an “intentional or reckless
       misstatement or omission”; and (2) “probable cause would be ne-
       gated if the offending statement was removed”. Paez v. Mulvey,
       915 F.3d 1276, 1287 (11th Cir. 2019). Officers may not lie about
       critical information, but negligent misstatements do not violate the
       Fourth Amendment. Id. at 1286–87.
              “Where the alleged Fourth Amendment violation involves
       a search or seizure pursuant to a warrant, the fact that a neutral
       magistrate has issued a warrant is the clearest indication that the
       officers acted in an objectively reasonable manner or . . . in ‘objec-
       tive good faith.’” Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535, 546
       (2012) (quoting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922–23 (1984)).
       However, “the fact that a neutral magistrate has issued a warrant
       authorizing the allegedly unconstitutional search or seizure does
       not end the inquiry into objective reasonableness,” and a suit will
       be permitted when “it is obvious that no reasonably competent of-
       ficer would have concluded that a warrant should issue.” Id. at 547
       (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)).
USCA11 Case: 22-12121         Document: 19-1        Date Filed: 01/23/2023         Page: 6 of 7

       6                          Opinion of the Court                      22-12121

               To “establish a finding of probable cause,” a search-warrant
       affidavit need only contain “sufficient information to conclude that
       a fair probability existed that seizable evidence would be found in
       the place sought to be searched.” United States v. Martin, 297 F.3d
       1308, 1314 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Pigrum, 922
       F.2d 249, 252–53 (5th Cir. 1991)). “[T]he affidavit should establish
       a connection between the defendant and the residence to be
       searched and a link between the residence and any criminal activ-
       ity.” Id. An affidavit that mentions an informant must demon-
       strate the informant’s “veracity” and “basis of knowledge.” Id.
       (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)). The veracity
       of an informant need not be determined when “there is sufficient
       independent corroboration of an informant’s information.” Id.
       (quoting United States v. Danhauer, 229 F.3d 1002, 1006 (10th Cir.
       2000)).
               We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discre-
       tion in dismissing Figures’s third amended complaint for failure to
       state a claim. Figures had multiple opportunities to amend his
       complaint to allege a factual basis in support of his Fourth Amend-
       ment claims1 against the defendants, but he failed to do so. Nota-
       bly, his claim of supervisor liability relied only on Sheriff Larry Ash-
       ley’s supervisory position as Sheriff, which is insufficient to

       1 Figures also appears to contend that he adequately pled a claim that his equal

       protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated. Because
       he did not raise that claim in his third amended complaint, which was the op-
       erative complaint, we do not address it.
USCA11 Case: 22-12121      Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 01/23/2023     Page: 7 of 7

       22-12121               Opinion of the Court                         7

       establish a factual basis for liability because there is no demon-
       strated causal connection or personal involvement between Ashley
       and Officer Joseph Gordon’s actions. As to Gordon, Figures alleged
       no facts indicating that Gordon knew that the affidavit was false or
       that he recklessly disregarded that possibility. Instead, he relied on
       conclusory allegations. Further, the affidavit in support of his ar-
       rest was not so facially deficient that no reasonable officer would
       have relied on it.
             Accordingly, we affirm.
              AFFIRMED.