Court Opinion

ID: 9825951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:00:54.192972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:21.645104
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13202   Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 09/01/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-13202
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       LARKIN LLOYD DERKS, III,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       DR. RAMON BASSA, DR. FELIX CRUZ,

                                                           Defendants,

       DR. ALEXIS FIGUEROA, CENTURION MEDICAL,

                                                 Defendant-Appellees.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13202     Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 09/01/2023    Page: 2 of 7

       2                     Opinion of the Court                22-13202

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 3:20-cv-00289-BJD-PDB
                          ____________________

       Before GRANT, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               State prisoner Larkin L. Derks, proceeding pro se, appeals
       the district court’s order dismissing his § 1983 claim of deliberate
       indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment against
       Centurion Medical, LLC and its order granting summary judgment
       on that same claim against Dr. Alexis Figueroa. Because Derks
       failed to sufficiently plead a policy or custom of Centurion leading
       to the alleged violation of his constitutional right and failed to
       provide sufficient evidence of deliberate indifference, we affirm.
                                        I.
              Prior to his incarceration, Derks was injured in an
       automobile accident. He was subsequently treated by a specialist
       who recommended surgery but entered prison under the custody
       of the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) before having
       any surgery. While in prison, Derks continued to receive
       treatment from Centurion, which contracts with FDOC to provide
       medical care to inmates.
              Frustrated with the medical care he received (particularly
       decisions not to follow specialist recommendations), Derks
       brought action against Centurion and three of its employees
USCA11 Case: 22-13202      Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 09/01/2023     Page: 3 of 7

       22-13202               Opinion of the Court                         3

       alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights
       under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and violations of the Americans with
       Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act (RA). He alleges that
       defendants were deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs
       in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
              The district court dismissed Derks’s ADA, RA, and
       Fourteenth Amendment claims against all defendants for failure to
       state a claim. It also dismissed his Eighth Amendment claims for
       failure to state a claim against all but one defendant: Dr. Alexis
       Figueroa, a physician and Centurion employee who treated Derks.
       The district court later granted summary judgment in favor of
       Figueroa on the remaining Eighth Amendment claim. Derks
       appeals the district court’s dismissal of his Eighth Amendment
       claim against Centurion and its summary judgment order on his
       Eighth Amendment claim against Figueroa.
                                        II.
               We review the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss
       for failure to state a claim de novo, “accept[ing] the allegations in
       the complaint as true and constru[ing] them in the light most
       favorable to the plaintiﬀ.” Henley v. Payne, 945 F.3d 1320, 1326 (11th
       Cir. 2019). To decide whether a complaint properly states a claim,
       a court must ﬁrst disregard any conclusory allegations and then
       determine whether any remaining factual allegations, if assumed
       as true, “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” McCullough
       v. Finley, 907 F.3d 1324, 1333 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Ashcroft v.
       Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)). While pro se complaints should be
USCA11 Case: 22-13202     Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 09/01/2023    Page: 4 of 7

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-13202

       construed liberally, they still must comply with the procedural
       rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
             A court must also give a pro se plaintiﬀ at least one chance
       to amend his complaint when a more carefully drafted complaint
       might state a claim. Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir.
       2001). But “when the complaint as amended would still be
       properly dismissed or be immediately subject to summary
       judgment for the defendant,” amendment is futile and need not be
       granted. Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007). We
       review a denial of a motion to amend based on futility de novo. Id.
              Our decision in Craig v. Floyd County squarely controls this
       case. 643 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2011). There, we held that a § 1983
       claim against a private entity that contracts with a county to
       provide medical services to inmates is treated as a § 1983 claim
       against a municipality. Id. at 1310. Such entities cannot be liable
       under § 1983 based on a theory of respondeat superior; rather, a
       plaintiﬀ must prove some policy or custom that caused his alleged
       harm. Id. This requirement can be met either directly through an
       oﬃcial policy or indirectly through a “longstanding and widespread
       practice.” Id. (quoting Brown v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 923 F.2d
       1474, 1481 (11th Cir. 1991)). “A single incident of a constitutional
       violation is insuﬃcient to prove a policy or custom even when the
       incident involves several employees.” Id. at 1311. And merely
       citing one’s own personal experience, without more, is insuﬃcient
       to show a longstanding and widespread practice. See id. at 1310–
       12; Myrick v. Fulton County, 69 F.4th 1277, 1299 (11th Cir. 2023).
USCA11 Case: 22-13202     Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 09/01/2023    Page: 5 of 7

       22-13202               Opinion of the Court                        5

              Derks failed to suﬃciently plead a policy or custom of
       Centurion that led to his harm. Because Centurion is a private
       entity contracting with FDOC to provide medical services to
       inmates, it is treated as a municipality under § 1983. See Craig, 643
       F.3d at 1310. Derks’s amended complaint alleges that Centurion
       has a policy or custom of refusing to comply with specialists’
       recommendations, but he points only to the deliberate indiﬀerence
       of three Centurion employees he experienced while receiving
       medical treatment. By only alleging his own personal experience
       with a few individual doctors, Derks failed to allege a “longstanding
       or widespread practice.” See Craig, 643 F.3d at 1311 (quoting Brown,
       923 F.2d at 1481).
              Although Derks was already given a chance to amend his
       complaint, he argues that he should receive a second opportunity
       to amend. He does not, however, specify how any amendment
       could adequately plead a policy or custom. Any additional
       amendment would thus be futile, and the district court properly
       dismissed Derks’s § 1983 claim against Centurion. See Cockrell, 510
       F.3d at 1310.
                                       III.
              We review a district court’s order granting summary
       judgment de novo, construing all evidence and drawing all
       reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant. Hickson Corp. v.
       N. Crossarm Co., 357 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (11th Cir. 2004). Summary
       judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute as to any
USCA11 Case: 22-13202      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 09/01/2023     Page: 6 of 7

       6                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13202

       material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
       law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
              The Eighth Amendment prohibits deliberate indiﬀerence to
       the serious medical needs of prisoners. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
       97, 104 (1976). To establish deliberate indiﬀerence, a plaintiﬀ must
       show “(1) a serious medical need; (2) the defendant’s deliberate
       indiﬀerence to that need; and (3) causation between that
       indiﬀerence and the plaintiﬀ’s injury.” Mann v. Taser Int’l Inc., 588
       F.3d 1291, 1306–07 (11th Cir. 2009). Deliberate indiﬀerence is not a
       simple diﬀerence in medical opinions. Keohane v. Florida Dep’t of
       Corr. Sec’y, 952 F.3d 1257, 1266 (11th Cir. 2020). Rather, a plaintiﬀ
       must show that a defendant acted with more than gross negligence.
       Wade v. McDade, 67 F.4th 1363, 1374 (11th Cir. 2023).
               Derks alleges that Figueroa was deliberately indifferent to
       his serious medical needs and thus violated his Eighth Amendment
       rights. He points to three instances to support his claim: (1)
       Figueroa’s failure to reissue medical passes; (2) Figueroa’s failure to
       follow specialist recommendations regarding his back and
       shoulder; and (3) Figueroa’s failure to conduct a left elbow x-ray
       after telling Derks one was needed. For each of these allegations,
       the record lacks any evidence that Figueroa knowingly failed to
       provide adequate care. Instead, the record shows that Figueroa
       renewed Derks’s medical passes according to policy, that he
       examined Derks every six months and prescribed him medication
       for his pain, and that Derks lacked any valid medical need for a left
       elbow x-ray. Any deviation from specialists’ recommendations
USCA11 Case: 22-13202    Document: 24-1       Date Filed: 09/01/2023   Page: 7 of 7

       22-13202             Opinion of the Court                        7

       was, at most, a difference in medical opinion. Nothing in the
       record suggests that Figueroa’s treatment was deliberately
       indifferent. The district court thus properly granted summary
       judgment for Figueroa.
                                   *      *       *
              By failing to sufficiently plead a policy or custom of
       Centurion, Derks’s § 1983 claim alleging deliberate indifference
       against Centurion fails as a matter of law. Derks’s § 1983 claim
       against Figueroa was properly dismissed at summary judgment
       because the record lacks any evidence to support deliberate
       indifference. We thus AFFIRM the district court’s motion to
       dismiss and summary judgment orders.

             AFFIRMED.