Case: 16-11826 Date Filed: 12/12/2016 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11826
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cv-62095-WPD
ERIC WATKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SIX UNKNOWN BROWARD SHERIFF JAIL DEPUTIES, et al.,
Defendants,
BSO SHERIFF SCOTT ISRAEL,
MARK PINNOCK,
BSO Jail Deputy,
ELIAS PINO,
BSO Jail Deputy,
DANNY POLK,
BSO Jail Deputy,
GREGORY GORDON,
BSO Jail Deputy, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Case: 16-11826 Date Filed: 12/12/2016 Page: 2 of 4
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 12, 2016)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Watkins appeals the sua sponte dismissal of his amended complaint
against Scott Israel, the Sheriff of Broward County, six unnamed deputies, and
three unnamed medical technicians in the Broward County Jail. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Watkins challenges the dismissal of his complaint that Sheriff Israel denied
him access to the courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watkins also
challenges the denial of his motions to alter or amend and for relief from the
judgment that dismissed without prejudice his complaints against the nine
unnamed employees. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b). We affirm.
The district court did not err by dismissing Watkins’s complaint against
Sheriff Israel. Watkins failed to allege facts supporting a plausible inference that
“systemic official action frustrate[d] [him] in preparing and filing suits at the
present time.” See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413 (2002). Watkins
alleged that Sheriff Israel refused to voluntarily identify six deputies who allegedly
assaulted Watkins or to identify three medical technicians who allegedly withheld
2
Case: 16-11826 Date Filed: 12/12/2016 Page: 3 of 4
treatment from Watkins. But Sheriff Israel’s inaction did not thwart Watkins from
“preparing and filing [his] suit[].” See id. Watkins could have acquired the
information he sought by, for example, requesting discovery, see Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b), serving interrogatories, see id. R. 33, or requesting documents about the
incidents alleged in his complaint, see id. R. 34. Watkins’s failure to prosecute his
case was attributable to his failure to use the methods of discovery available to him
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and not to an unconstitutional denial of
access to courts.
The district court also did not abuse its discretion when it denied Watkins’s
motions to alter or amend and for relief from the judgment that dismissed his
complaints against the unnamed deputies and technicians. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e), 60(b)(6). The district court dismissed Watkins’s complaints after he failed to
serve process on the unnamed employees within 120 days, as required under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), and after he failed to respond to an order to
show cause for his lack of service. The district court acted within its discretion
when it determined that Watkins failed to take reasonable steps to identify the
unserved defendants. Watkins’s postjudgment motion alleged no “manifest errors
of law or fact” that warranted an alteration or amendment of the judgment under
Rule 59(e), see Hamilton v. Sec’y, Florida Dep’t of Corr., 793 F.3d 1261, 1266
(11th Cir. 2015), nor did his motion establish “that the circumstances [were]
3
Case: 16-11826 Date Filed: 12/12/2016 Page: 4 of 4
sufficiently extraordinary to warrant relief” under Rule 60(b)(6), see Cano v.
Baker, 435 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2006). Because the dismissal was without
prejudice, Watkins could refile his complaint.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Watkins’s amended complaint.
4