Case: 12-10509 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10509
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cv-60882-AJ
ABDELAZIZ BILAL HAMZE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SERGEANT SPENCER STEELE,
Employed as jail staff at Broward main jail,
CCN #6393,
DEPUTY JAMES ANDERSON,
Employed as jail staff at Broward main jail,
CCN #8105,
DEPUTY RICHARD RIVERA,
Employed as jail staff at Broward main jail,
CCN #8386,
DEPUTY MCDOWELL,
Employed as jail staff at Broward main jail,
CCN #14308,
DEPUTY BRUCE CARSON,
Employed as jail staff at Broward main jail,
CCN #3971, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
Case: 12-10509 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 Page: 2 of 5
CHARLES JONES,
Employed as jail staff at Broward main jail,
CCN #12484,
Defendant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 15, 2013)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Abdelaziz Bilal Hamze appeals pro se the dismissal without prejudice of his
complaint against officers of the Broward County Jail. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Hamze complained about assault and endangerment by the officers, but the district
court ruled that Hamze had failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Hamze
challenges the dismissal of his complaint and the denial of his motions for leave to
amend the complaint and for the appointment of counsel. We affirm.
The district court did not err by dismissing Hamze’s complaint without
prejudice for failure to exhaust. Although the evidence submitted by the officers
and Hamze was conflicting, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred when
it found that Hamze had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Bryant
2
Case: 12-10509 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 Page: 3 of 5
v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368, 1374–76 (11th Cir. 2008). Hamze averred in an affidavit
that he had filed a grievance form complaining about twice being assaulted by
officers in January 2008, but the officers submitted an affidavit from the custodian
of jail records establishing that Hamze had not filed a grievance reporting the
assaults, despite filing grievances about five other minor incidents. And Hamze
failed to introduce the grievance form, even though each form provided a copy for
the inmate to keep. Hamze also averred that he had filed a grievance about being
injured in September 2008 after officers placed him in a cell with an inmate who
was violent and knew Hamze’s victim, but Hamze’s grievance complained only of
being “placed with other inmates . . . in violation of [his] protective custody” and
did not mention an assault or being incarcerated with a particular inmate. See
Brown v. Sikes, 212 F.3d 1205, 1207 (11th Cir. 2000). Hamze also failed to file
that grievance within five days of the alleged assault, as required by the jail
procedures, see Johnson v. Meadows, 418 F.3d 1152, 1157 (11th Cir. 2005), and
he did not appeal to the jail administrator after being denied relief by a member of
the staff. Hamze argues that compliance with jail procedures would have been
futile and the officers received actual notice of his grievances during an internal
affairs investigation, but Hamze knew of and was required to “comply with the
grievance procedures established by [the jail] before filing a federal lawsuit under
section 1983,” Miller v. Tanner, 196 F.3d 1190, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999).
3
Case: 12-10509 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 Page: 4 of 5
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Hamze’s first
and second motions for leave to amend his complaint. The district court
reasonably determined that Hamze’s proposed amendments would unfairly
prejudice the officers. See Technical Res. Servs., Inc. v. Dornier Med. Sys., Inc.,
134 F.3d 1458, 1463 (11th Cir. 1998). Hamze’s first motion sought to add an
additional four officers and six unknown officers of the jail and South Florida
Reception Center based on six allegations of assault and endangerment unrelated to
the claims in his original complaint. Hamze’s second motion sought to add
another five officers of the jail based on six more alleged incidents of
endangerment and falsification of an incident report. Hamze filed his second
motion on the day before the deadline expired to amend the pleadings and
complete discovery, and after the district court had twice extended the deadline at
Hamze’s request. And Hamze failed to explain why he had not included the
allegations of his proposed amendments in his original complaint.
The district court also did not abuse its discretion when it denied Hamze’s
motions for appointment of counsel. Hamze’s case did not involve any
“exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of counsel.” Fowler v. Jones,
899 F.2d 1088, 1096 (11th Cir. 1990). Hamze witnessed the incidents about which
he complained; his facts and issues were not novel or complex; and he had filed
coherent pleadings, obtained extensions of time, and responded timely to rulings
4
Case: 12-10509 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 Page: 5 of 5
by the district court. Hamze sought assistance to retain and interview an expert
witness to explain his injuries, but his injuries were relatively easy to describe.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Hamze’s complaint.
5