Case: 11-15058 Date Filed: 08/10/2012 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-15058
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-02357-CAP
ROBERT HEARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER, GA DOC,
JOSE MORALES,
KEITH MORRIS,
TIMOTHY JONES,
SHEVONDAH FIELDS,
RICKY MYRICKS,
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(August 10, 2012)
Case: 11-15058 Date Filed: 08/10/2012 Page: 2 of 4
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Heard, a Georgia prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his
complaint for failure to state a claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and for
improper venue. Heard filed his complaint against Brian Owens, Commissioner of
the Georgia Department of Corrections; the Georgia Parole Board; and several
employees of Johnson State Prison. The district court ruled that Heard’s
complaint against Owens and the Parole Board failed to state a claim and that
venue was improper as to the remaining defendants. Heard argues that
Commissioner Owens and an employee of the Parole Board, Walt Davis, failed to
prevent his injury by employees of the prison and were deliberately indifferent to
his medical needs. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.
We review a dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo. Farese v.
Scherer, 342 F.3d 1223, 1230 (11th Cir. 2003). To survive dismissal for failure to
state a claim, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement
to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964–65 (2007). The facts alleged in a
complaint must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face to avoid
2
Case: 11-15058 Date Filed: 08/10/2012 Page: 3 of 4
dismissal for failure to state a claim. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79, 129
S. Ct. 1937, 1949–50 (2009). And section 1915 affords a district court the
authority to “pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss
those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Bilal v. Driver, 251
F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Pro se
pleadings are held to a less stringent standard and are liberally construed.
Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). But “issues
not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Timson v.
Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
“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).
State officials “may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their
subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior,” and to state a claim, “a
plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the
official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 676, 129 S. Ct. at 1948. A supervisory official may be liable under section 1983
when the supervisor participates in the constitutional violation or there is a causal
connection between the actions of the supervisor and the violation. Cottone v.
3
Case: 11-15058 Date Filed: 08/10/2012 Page: 4 of 4
Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003). “The standard by which a
supervisor is held liable for a subordinate’s actions is extremely rigorous.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted).
As an initial matter, Heard abandoned any claim against the Georgia Parole
Board or the employees of the Johnson State Prison by not addressing in his initial
brief the rulings by the district court about these defendants. We will not review
those rulings.
The district court committed no error in dismissing Heard’s complaint
against Owens and Davis for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. As the district court ruled, Owens cannot be held vicariously liable,
under section 1983, for the conduct of his subordinates. And Heard failed to
allege plausible facts to support a causal connection between any actions of
Owens or Davis and Heard’s alleged constitutional injuries. We affirm the
dismissal of Heard’s complaint.
AFFIRMED.
4