Case: 12-11134 Date Filed: 06/26/2013 Page: 1 of 13
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11134
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cv-14262-JEM
ANGEL L. ROSA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
REGIONAL DIRECTOR MARTA VILLA-CORTA,
OFC. MOORE,
State Classification Officer,
WARDEN, HARDEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE,
ASST. WARDEN, HARDEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
c/o Ms. Anderson, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 26, 2013)
Case: 12-11134 Date Filed: 06/26/2013 Page: 2 of 13
Before CARNES, BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Angel L. Rosa proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Florida Department of
Corrections (“DOC”) and various DOC employees, for failure to state a claim
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). On appeal, Rosa asserts that his original
complaint adequately stated a claim for relief and that the magistrate judge erred in
requiring him to file an amended complaint. For the reasons set forth below, we
affirm the dismissal of Rosa’s complaint.
I.
On July 22, 2011, Rosa, a Florida prisoner, filed a pro se § 1983 complaint
against the DOC and numerous DOC officials. In his complaint, Rosa alleged that
several DOC officials conspired to retaliate against him for filing complaints
against them. Further, he requested that the district court review all of his exhibits
to “ascertain the seriousness” of his allegations. Rosa detailed the numerous
grievances that he had filed against DOC officers at Hardee Correctional
Institution (“Hardee CI”), where he had been incarcerated in 2009. On August 31,
2010, Rosa was transferred to Martin Correctional Institution (“Martin CI”). Rosa
asserted that he was retaliated against through “bogus disciplinary reports,” mental
trauma, duress, inadequate food supply, and deliberate indifference to his safety.
2
Case: 12-11134 Date Filed: 06/26/2013 Page: 3 of 13
Further, he claimed that DOC officials “maliciously and sadistically” searched him
and seized his property, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Finally, Rosa
alleged that he was transferred from Martin CI to Everglades Correctional
Institution in retaliation. Rosa named 18 defendants, including several officials
from Hardee CI and Martin CI.
On August 24, 2011, the magistrate judge ordered Rosa to file an amended
complaint. The magistrate noted that Rosa was apparently claiming retaliation at
various correctional institutions for being a “writ writer.” However, Rosa named
multiple defendants, and his allegations were confusing and unclear. Further,
many of the allegations involved defendants who are employed at Hardee CI,
which is located in the Middle District of Florida, and any allegations against those
individuals must be filed in that district. However, Martin CI was located in the
Southern District of Florida and, thus, the magistrate instructed Rosa to file a
proposed amended complaint, naming the specific acts of retaliation that took
place at Martin CI, and the specific defendants, employed by Martin CI, who were
responsible for those acts.
On September 1, 2011, Rosa filed a motion to amend the complaint and
included the first amended complaint. Subsequently, on September 22, 2011, Rosa
filed a motion for an extension of time to file a second amended complaint. The
3
Case: 12-11134 Date Filed: 06/26/2013 Page: 4 of 13
magistrate granted Rosa’s motion and cautioned him that, if he filed a second
amended complaint, his first amended complaint would not be reviewed.
On October 14, 2011, Rosa filed a second amended complaint against
Walter A. McNeil, Secretary of the DOC; Marta Villacorta, a regional director
with the DOC; and numerous Martin CI officials, including: (1) Officer Moore;
(2) Thomas Reid, the warden; (3) Mr. Inman, an assistant warden; (4) Officer
Posten; (5) Lieutenant Bartfield; (6) Lieutenant Morales; (7) Sergeant Bator;
(8) Officer Marrero; (9) Officer Lawrence; (10) Major Collins; (11) Inspector
Buchanan; and (12) Officer Harris. In his complaint, Rosa reasserted that DOC
officials had retaliated against him for exercising his constitutional rights, and he
specified his claims against each defendant. In support, Rosa filed over 100 pages
of exhibits.
On November 22, 2011, the magistrate conducted a preliminary screening of
the second amended complaint and issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”)
that it be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The
magistrate also recommended that Rosa’s prior complaints be dismissed. As to the
sufficiency of the second amended complaint, the magistrate found that Rosa’s
claims against Secretary McNeil, Director Villacorta, Warden Reed, and Assistant
Warden Inman failed to state a claim under § 1983. Specifically, Rosa failed to
state a claim under § 1983 because he did not allege that these defendants were
4
Case: 12-11134 Date Filed: 06/26/2013 Page: 5 of 13
directly involved in a constitutional violation and their liability was based solely on
their supervisory positions. Moreover, Rosa failed to show a causal link between a
government policy or custom and an alleged injury.
The magistrate further found that Rosa’s allegations against Lieutenant
Bartfield and Sergeant Bator were conclusory and failed to state a specific
constitutional violation. Rosa alleged that Officers Marrero and Lawrence would
do “all possible when told to retaliate” and would usually retaliate against inmates
by writing false reports. However, these claims were also “completely
conclusory,” and, further, they were unrelated to Rosa. Next, Rosa alleged that
Major Collins was advised that his officers were harassing, intimidating, and
threatening Rosa, which resulted in an unsafe environment. However, Rosa did
not provide specific facts as to the acts of retaliation and resulting injuries and, as
such, Major Collins must be dismissed as a defendant. Further, Rosa’s claims—
that Inspector Buchanan did nothing to cure the constitutional violations of her
subordinates and that Officer Harris was involved in transferring Rosa on behalf of
her subordinates—were also “completely conclusory” and failed to state a claim.
Additionally, Rosa’s claim that Officer Morales threatened him with “setting him
up” lacked any supporting facts. Finally, as to Rosa’s claim that the DOC had
denied him adequate meals and sanitary items, the DOC is not a person within the
statute governing § 1983 cases.
5
Case: 12-11134 Date Filed: 06/26/2013 Page: 6 of 13
The magistrate noted that Rosa had submitted over 80 pages of grievances in
support of his complaint. However, the magistrate explained that, to successfully
state a claim under § 1983, Rosa was required to demonstrate, on the face of his
complaint, that the named defendants violated his constitutional rights, and he
failed to do so. Thus, Rosa’s grievances could not be viewed separately to
establish a claim for relief. In sum, the magistrate recommended that the
complaint and first amended complaint be dismissed, and that the second amended
complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Over Rosa’s objections, the district court adopted the R&R, and dismissed
the second amended complaint.
II.
We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state
a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and view the allegations in the
complaint as true. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (11th Cir. 2003).
Although pro se pleadings are afforded a liberal construction, “issues not briefed
on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518
F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a court shall dismiss a case proceeding
in forma pauperis “at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
6
Case: 12-11134 Date Filed: 06/26/2013 Page: 7 of 13
Further, a dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard as
a dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252
(11th Cir. 2008). To properly state a claim, a complaint must contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Although the complaint need not set forth detailed factual
allegations, a plaintiff is required to provide more than mere “labels and
conclusions” and the factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555,
127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Further, the factual allegations
must be sufficient “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570,
127 S.Ct. at 1974. Thus, mere conclusory statements in support of a threadbare
recital of the elements of a cause of action will not suffice. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Legal
conclusions can provide a framework for the complaint, but they must be
supported by factual allegations. Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. at 1950.
Generally, “where a more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim, a
plaintiff must be given at least one chance to amend the complaint before the
district court dismisses the action with prejudice.” Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d
1161, 1163 (11th Cir.2001). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “an
amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and becomes the operative
7
Case: 12-11134 Date Filed: 06/26/2013 Page: 8 of 13
pleading in the case.” Krinsk v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., 654 F.3d 1194, 1202 (11th
Cir. 2011). Further, while pro se pleadings are liberally construed, “this leniency
does not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite
an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” GJR Invs., Inc. v.
Cnty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted),
overruled on other grounds as recognized in Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 706
(11th Cir. 2010).
“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).
“The First Amendment forbids prison officials from retaliating against prisoners
for exercising the right of free speech.” Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1248
(11th Cir.2003). An inmate raises a First Amendment claim of retaliation if he
shows that the prison official disciplined him for filing a grievance concerning the
conditions of his imprisonment. Id. Government officials, however, “may not be
held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of
respondeat superior” in a § 1983 action. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676, 129 S.Ct. at 1948.
Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to § 1983 actions, “a plaintiff must plead
that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual
actions, has violated the Constitution.” Id. Finally, “[a] state, a state agency, and a
8
Case: 12-11134 Date Filed: 06/26/2013 Page: 9 of 13
state official sued in his official capacity are not ‘persons’ within the meaning of §
1983.” Edwards v. Wallace Cmty. Coll., 49 F.3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir. 1995).
However, government entities may be held liable under § 1983 for the execution of
a governmental policy or custom. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of
New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2035-36, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).
As a preliminary matter, on appeal, Rosa appears to discuss only the
adequacy of his original complaint, without specifically addressing the allegations
in his second amended complaint. Thus, he may have abandoned any argument
that his second amended complaint adequately stated a claim for relief. See
Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. However, Rosa generally challenges the dismissal of his
case for failure to state a claim, and his second amended complaint was the
operative complaint before the district court when it dismissed his case. See
Krinsk, 654 F.3d at 1202. Thus, construing Rosa’s brief liberally, we conclude that
he has sufficiently challenged the dismissal of his second amended complaint. See
Timson, 518 F.3d at 874
Further, the appellees suggest that Rosa is barred from challenging the
magistrate’s order that instructed him to file an amended complaint. However,
because the magistrate’s order was not the final judgment in the case, it appears
that we may review Rosa’s arguments regarding the order. See Barfield v.
Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 930-31 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that, when reviewing a
9
Case: 12-11134 Date Filed: 06/26/2013 Page: 10 of 13
final judgment, we generally also have jurisdiction to review “all prior non-final
orders and rulings which produced the judgment”). Additionally, although Rosa
complied with the order, he argued, in his objections to the R&R, that the
magistrate misconstrued his original complaint and erred in requesting an amended
complaint. Thus, it appears that Rosa has preserved this argument for appeal.
Regardless, neither of Rosa’s complaints provided sufficient factual
allegations to comply with the pleading standards set forth in Twombly and Iqbal.
Rosa’s original complaint asserted that various DOC officials: (1) retaliated against
him for filing grievances, (2) conspired to place him in an unsafe environment,
(3) exhibited deliberate indifference to the actions of their subordinates; and
(4) maliciously searched him and seized his property. However, his allegations
were insufficient to state a claim for relief because he failed to provide sufficient
factual support for these alleged violations. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127
S.Ct. at 1964-65; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50. Instead, Rosa
provided only vague and conclusory allegations and requested that the district
court review his exhibits to “ascertain the seriousness” of his claims. For example,
Rosa alleged that “the three amigos” retaliated against him by filing false
disciplinary reports, but he failed to identify these individuals or describe the false
reports. Further, he alleged that officials engaged in a conspiracy to place him in
an unsafe environment, but he provided no further factual support regarding the
10
Case: 12-11134 Date Filed: 06/26/2013 Page: 11 of 13
alleged conspiracy or the unsafe conditions. Although Rosa suggests that the
district court should have reviewed his exhibits to ascertain the factual support for
his claims, the district court was not authorized to “serve as de facto counsel” or to
“rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading.” See GJR Invs., Inc., 132 F.3d at 1369.
Further, Rosa named 18 defendants in his complaint, but failed to clearly indicate
which constitutional violations were committed by each defendant. Although Rosa
was not required to provide detailed factual allegations, his original complaint
failed to provide enough facts, which, if accepted as true, would raise his right to
relief above a speculative level or state a plausible claim for relief. See Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555, 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65, 1974; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct.
at 1949-50.
Because Rosa’s original complaint failed to adequately state a claim for
relief, the magistrate properly provided him with an opportunity to file an amended
complaint. See Bryant, 252 F.3d at 1163. In his second amended complaint, Rosa
complied with the magistrate’s instructions to separate his claims and identify
which defendant committed each alleged constitutional violation. However,
Rosa’s claims either lacked sufficient factual support or failed to state a viable
claim under § 1983. Specifically, Rosa’s claims against Secretary McNeil,
Director Villacorta, Warden Reid, Assistant Warden Inman, Inspector Buchanan,
and Officer Posten were all based on vicarious liability. Rosa alleged that each of
11
Case: 12-11134 Date Filed: 06/26/2013 Page: 12 of 13
these DOC officials were deliberately indifferent either to his grievances or to the
retaliatory actions of their subordinates. Additionally, he alleged that Inspector
Buchanan failed to cure the constitutional violations of her subordinates.
However, Rosa did not allege that these supervisory DOC officials had any
personal involvement in a constitutional violation. Because vicarious liability is
inapplicable to § 1983 actions, Rosa failed to state a plausible claim for relief
against these defendants. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676, 129 S.Ct. at 1948; Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974.
Rosa’s claims against the remaining defendants were too conclusory and
vague to satisfy the pleading standards set forth in Twombly and Iqbal.
Specifically, Rosa asserted that Lieutenant Bartfield was known to retaliate against
inmates and that Officer Moore established a conspiracy to place Rosa in an unsafe
environment. Further, Rosa alleged that Sergeant Bator influenced the retaliatory
actions of others and that Officers Marrero and Lawrence would “do all possible
when told to retaliate.” Rosa also alleged that Major Collins was deliberately
indifferent to his care and safety, and that Officer Harris was liable for her “no care
policy,” which led to the filing of false reports. As to each of these retaliation
claims, Rosa failed to allege any specific acts of retaliation or to describe the
contents of any false disciplinary reports. Additionally, Rosa alleged that
Lieutenant Morales threatened to “set[] [him] up,” but Rosa provided no other
12
Case: 12-11134 Date Filed: 06/26/2013 Page: 13 of 13
factual allegations regarding this incident. Rosa also failed to specify how he was
threatened or how DOC officials conspired against him. Thus, Rosa’s threadbare
assertions of alleged constitutional violations, without further factual support, are
insufficient to state a claim for relief. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. at
1949-50.
Finally, Rosa alleged that the DOC violated his Eighth Amendment rights by
failing to provide adequate food and necessities. However, Rosa’s allegations did
not provide enough detail to suggest that the DOC violated his rights by executing
a governmental policy or custom. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91, 98 S.Ct. at
2035-36. Thus, the DOC, a government entity, was not subject to liability under
§ 1983. See Edwards, 49 F.3d at 1524.
In sum, applying the standards set forth in Twombly and Iqbal, Rosa failed to
provide sufficient factual support to state a plausible claim for relief or to raise his
right to relief above a speculative level.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the dismissal of Rosa’s complaints.
AFFIRMED.
13