Court Opinion

ID: 9889757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 15:01:08.282494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:29.302093
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14155   Document: 13-1     Date Filed: 10/11/2023   Page: 1 of 8

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                               No. 22-14155
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       JULIO JUAN GARCIA,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       ASHLEY MOODY,
       Attorney General, State of Florida, in oﬃcial
       and individual capacities,
       MIAMI-DADE CORRECTIONS AND REHAB
       DEPARTMENT,
       in oﬃcial and individual capacities,
       O EGINS,
       MDCR-Corrections Medical Health Services
       Chief/Director, in oﬃcial and individual capacities,
       JACKSON HEALTH SYSTEM CORRECTIONS WARD,
USCA11 Case: 22-14155      Document: 13-1     Date Filed: 10/11/2023     Page: 2 of 8

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-14155

       John/Jane Doe, in oﬃcial and individual capacities,
       DANIELLA LEVINE CAVA,
       Miami-Dade County Mayor, in oﬃcial and
       individual capacities, et al.,

                                                     Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-22377-WPD
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Julio Juan Garcia appeals the dismissal without prejudice of
       his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil-rights case, alleging inadequate or delayed
       medical treatment for injuries he suffered in an altercation with po-
       lice officers in October 2020. After careful review, we affirm.
                                         I.
              Garcia filed a pro se civil-rights action under § 1983 arising
       out of an incident on October 20, 2020. On that date, according to
USCA11 Case: 22-14155        Document: 13-1       Date Filed: 10/11/2023       Page: 3 of 8

       22-14155                    Opinion of the Court                          3

       the complaint, 1 plainclothes narcotics officers with the Miami-
       Dade Police Department entered an apartment with guns drawn
       and without identifying themselves as police. Garcia woke up in
       the apartment and believed he was under attack, and he was shot
       and returned fire. The officers retreated, and Garcia called 911 be-
       fore passing out from blood loss. When he awoke hours later, he
       called 911 again and learned that officers were outside. Upon en-
       tering, the officers beat, kicked, and pistol-whipped him into un-
       consciousness. He woke up in a hospital, having suffered fractured
       ribs, a fractured femur, and a lacerated spleen, and he underwent
       extensive major surgery.
               After his discharge from the hospital on October 26, Garcia
       was sent to the Miami-Dade County Jail without prescribed medi-
       cations and medical supplies. He was dragged into the jail. The
       jail took three hours to give him a wheelchair and three days to
       assign him a bed. He was denied bond and detained pretrial. Dur-
       ing his detention, the jail delayed or denied medical and dental
       care, including by failing to timely provide physical therapy or
       medical supplies, such as a rib brace or a cane.
              Based on these facts, Garcia raised constitutional claims
       against five defendants in their individual and official capacities. He
       alleged that the Florida Attorney General, the Miami-Dade County
       Mayor, and an unnamed Miami-Dade County Commissioner, by
       virtue of their supervisory roles, were “legally responsible” for false

       1 We recite the background as alleged in the complaint. The actual facts may

       or may not be as alleged.
USCA11 Case: 22-14155      Document: 13-1      Date Filed: 10/11/2023     Page: 4 of 8

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-14155

       arrest, false imprisonment, unreasonable search and seizure, ex
       post facto violations relating to his bond and Florida’s “stand your
       ground” immunity, and cruel and unusual punishment. He also
       alleged claims of deliberate indifference to his medical needs
       against the unnamed director of the hospital’s corrections ward and
       the unnamed director of patient care for the jail, claiming that these
       defendants, again due to their positions of authority, were liable for
       deficiencies in his medical care.
               The district court sua sponte screened the complaint and dis-
       missed it as a “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that Garcia
       failed to allege any facts showing that the defendants took any ac-
       tions or were aware of alleged violations of Garcia’s constitutional
       rights. The court also noted that Garcia’s allegations of unreason-
       able search and seizure were the subject of a separate lawsuit, and
       so were “irrelevant” to his allegations of deficient medical care.
       The court granted leave to amend and provided specific instruc-
       tions on filing an amended complaint.
               Garcia filed an amended complaint, adding another un-
       named supervisory official and naming the County Commissioner,
       but otherwise restating essentially the same factual allegations and
       theories of liability. After screening the amendments, the district
       court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to state a
       claim. The court found that Garcia failed to properly identify cer-
       tain jail and hospital defendants and otherwise failed to state a plau-
       sible claim under § 1983, since none of the defendants were
USCA11 Case: 22-14155      Document: 13-1      Date Filed: 10/11/2023     Page: 5 of 8

       22-14155               Opinion of the Court                          5

       personally involved in the alleged conduct and there was no basis
       for supervisory liability. Garcia appeals.
                                         II.
               We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim un-
       der 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), applying the same standards as a
       dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d
       1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). A plaintiff states a claim to relief where
       the complaint’s factual allegations, accepted as true, make it facially
       plausible that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
       Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). We may affirm the judg-
       ment on any ground supported by the record. Big Top Koolers, Inc.
       v. Circus-Man Snacks, Inc., 528 F.3d 839, 844 (11th Cir. 2008).
              We liberally construe the filings of pro se parties. Tannen-
       baum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). Still,
       “issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed aban-
       doned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
              On appeal, Garcia maintains that the district court should
       have permitted his claims to go forward against the medical de-
       fendants for deliberate indifference to his medical needs, or at least
       permitted another chance at amending these claims. But he does
       not dispute the court’s conclusion that his claims based on the
       search and seizure on October 20 were the subject of another civil-
       rights case and so were not properly raised in this one. As a result,
       we deem any appeal of these latter claims abandoned. See id.
             For the remaining claims, Garcia seeks to hold the medical
       defendants liable as supervisors for their subordinates’ failure to
USCA11 Case: 22-14155      Document: 13-1      Date Filed: 10/11/2023     Page: 6 of 8

       6                      Opinion of the Court                  22-14155

       provide constitutionally adequate medical care. To do so, he must
       satisfy an “extremely rigorous” standard. Piazza v. Jefferson Cnty.,
       923 F.3d 947, 957 (11th Cir. 2019).
              “Supervisory officials cannot be held liable under § 1983 for
       unconstitutional acts by their subordinates based on respondeat-
       superior or vicarious-liability principles.” Id. Rather, the plaintiff
       must show either (a) the supervisor’s personal participation in the
       alleged unconstitutional conduct or (b) a causal connection be-
       tween the supervisor’s actions and the alleged constitutional depri-
       vation. Id. A plaintiff can establish a causal connection by showing
       that “a supervisor’s policy or custom,” or the absence of a policy,
       “resulted in deliberate indifference to constitutional rights.” Id.
       (quotation marks omitted). But that ordinarily requires pointing
       to “[a] pattern of similar constitutional violations” from which de-
       liberate indifference can be inferred. Craig v. Floyd Cnty., 643 F.3d
       1306, 1310 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted). Isolated in-
       cidents are insufficient. Piazza, 923 F.3d at 957.
               Here, the district court did not err in dismissing Garcia’s de-
       liberate-indifference claims without prejudice. Garcia did not al-
       lege that the defendants personally participated in the alleged un-
       constitutional conduct, and his allegations do not plausibly support
       a “causal connection” between their conduct and the alleged con-
       stitutional deprivation. See Piazza, 923 F.3d at 957. Apart from his
       own experiences, he does not identify other similar instances of de-
       ficient medical care at the county jail, “nor does he allege any facts
USCA11 Case: 22-14155      Document: 13-1       Date Filed: 10/11/2023      Page: 7 of 8

       22-14155                Opinion of the Court                           7

       indicating that [the medical defendants] were on notice of [their
       subordinates’] alleged deliberate indifference.” Id. at 958.
               “Because [Garcia’s] complaint contains only conclusory as-
       sertions that [hospital and jail employees] were indifferent to [his]
       needs,” without alleging facts showing that a custom or policy
       caused that indifference, “he has not stated a claim for supervisory
       liability for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Id.
       Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal without prejudice of these
       claims. Because we affirm on this alternative ground, we need not
       resolve whether Garcia adequately identified the defendants for
       these claims. See Big Top Koolers, 528 F.3d at 844.
               Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by fail-
       ing to grant leave to amend. See Woldeab v. Dekalb Cnty. Bd. of Educ.,
       885 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2018) (“We review a district court’s
       decision to deny leave to amend for abuse of discretion.”). The
       court dismissed the complaint after giving Garcia notice of the de-
       fects in his original complaint and a chance to fix those deficiencies.
       See Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295–96 (11th Cir.
       2018) (mandating at least one chance to cure a shotgun pleading).
       Our precedent does not necessarily require a second chance to
       amend, even for a pro se party. See Silberman v. Miami Dade Transit,
       927 F.3d 1123, 1132–33 (11th Cir. 2019) (explaining that a pro se
       party “must be given at least one chance to amend” (emphasis
       omitted)). Nor does our review of the record suggest that Garcia
       could establish a claim of supervisory liability under § 1983 through
       a more carefully drafted complaint. See id. We also note that the
USCA11 Case: 22-14155     Document: 13-1     Date Filed: 10/11/2023   Page: 8 of 8

       8                     Opinion of the Court                22-14155

       district court dismissed the claims without prejudice, meaning Gar-
       cia is not prohibited from amending and refiling his claims.
             For these reasons, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Garcia’s
       amended complaint without prejudice. Garcia’s “Motion for Un-
       supported Findings Regarding Due Process Violation,” which con-
       cerns his request for a transcript not relevant to this appeal, is
       DENIED as moot.