Ricardo Medrano-Arzate v. Sheriff of Okeechobee County ( 2017 )

Case: 16-14170 Date Filed: 06/29/2017 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-14170
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:15-cv-14408-RLR
RICARDO MEDRANO-ARZATE,
EVA CHAVEZ-MEDRANO,
as Personal Representative of the
ESTATE OF HILDA MEDRANDO, Deceased,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
SHERIFF OF OKEECHOBEE COUNTY,
Paul C. May, individually,
OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 29, 2017)
Before HULL, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-14170 Date Filed: 06/29/2017 Page: 2 of 3
Plaintiffs Ricardo Medrano-Arzate and Eva Chavez Medrano, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Hilda Medrano (Appellants), appeal the district
court’s dismissal of their amended complaint against Paul C. May, individually and
as Sheriff of Okeechobee County, and Okeechobee County (Appellees). The
complaint arises out of the death of Hilda Medrano on December 1, 2013, when
the vehicle in which she was a passenger collided with a vehicle driven by Deputy
Joseph Anthony Gracie of the Okeechobee County Sheriff’s Office. Appellants
filed suit against May, individually and in his capacity as Sheriff, and Okeechobee
County, but did not file suit against Deputy Gracie. Appellants alleged that certain
policies implemented by the Appellees, pursuant to which Deputy Gracie was
unable to operate his lights and sirens while responding to an emergency call,
caused the collision and Hilda Medrano’s death.
While we agree with the district court that Hilda Medrano’s death was
tragic, we also agree that the Appellants have failed to state a claim against the
Appellees under § 1983. As Appellants do not allege that Deputy Gracie’s conduct
amounted to a deprivation of Hilda Medrano’s constitutional rights, Appellants
cannot maintain an action against Appellees under § 1983 based upon the policies
alleged to have caused Hilda Medrano’s death. Appellants concede their claim is
foreclosed by Rooney v. Watson, 101 F.3d 1378, 1381 (11th Cir. 1996) (“[A]n
inquiry into a governmental entity’s custom or policy is relevant only when a
2
Case: 16-14170 Date Filed: 06/29/2017 Page: 3 of 3
constitutional deprivation has occurred.”). Thus, we affirm the district court’s
dismissal. See McKusick v. City of Melbourne, 96 F.3d 478, 482 (11th Cir. 1996)
(reviewing de novo a district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for
failure state a claim).
AFFIRMED.
3