USCA11 Case: 22-12121 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12121
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
LEROY LEE FIGURES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH GORDON,
Officer investigator in his individual and official capacity,
OKALOOSA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE NARCOTICSUNIT,
Official capacity,
MICHELLE NICHOLASON,
Spokesperson individual capacity,
JOHN DOES,
JANE DOES,
SHERIFF, OKALOOSA COUNTY,
USCA11 Case: 22-12121 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 2 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12121
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-00838-LC-HTC
____________________
Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Leroy Figures, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district
court’s order dismissing his pro se complaint with prejudice for fail-
ure to state a claim. Liberally construed, Figures argues on appeal
that the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed his
third amended complaint because the affidavit in support of a
search warrant for his home was invalid and he alleged sufficient
facts to support his claims. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I.
We review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for fail-
ure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) de novo and ap-
ply the same standard of review as for dismissals under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Leal v. Ga. Dep’t of Corr.,
254
F.3d 1276, 1278–79 (11th Cir. 2001). We take the allegations in a
complaint as true and construed “in the light most favorable to the
USCA11 Case: 22-12121 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 3 of 7
22-12121 Opinion of the Court 3
plaintiff.” Leib v. Hillsborough Cnty. Pub. Transp. Comm’n,
558
F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2009).
“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally con-
strued.” Tannenbaum v. United States,
148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th
Cir. 1998). We generally do not consider arguments raised for the
first time on appeal because the district court never had a chance
to examine them. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co.,
385 F.3d
1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004).
II.
Section 1915A of the Prison Litigation Reform Act provides
that “[t]he court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any
event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental en-
tity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss
the complaint, or any portions thereof, that are frivolous, mali-
cious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Id. § 1915A(b). “A complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to
state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show the plaintiff is
not entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).
To properly state a claim for relief, “a complaint must con-
tain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662,
USCA11 Case: 22-12121 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 4 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12121
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable infer-
ence that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id.
However, “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of ac-
tion will not do,” and the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly,
550
U.S. at 555. “[A]n amended complaint supersedes the initial com-
plaint and becomes the operative pleading in the case.” Lowery v.
Alabama Power Co.,
483 F.3d 1184, 1219 (11th Cir. 2007).
Under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, no person acting under color of state
law shall deprive another of his constitutional rights.
42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. “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).
“It is well established in this Circuit that supervisory officials
are not liable under § 1983 for the unconstitutional acts of their sub-
ordinates on the basis of respondeat superior or vicarious liability.”
Cottone v. Jenne,
326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting
Hartley v. Parnell,
193 F.3d 1263, 1269 (11th Cir. 1999)), abrogated
in part on other grounds by Randall v. Scott,
610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir.
2010). “Instead, supervisory liability under § 1983 occurs either
when the supervisor personally participates in the alleged uncon-
stitutional conduct or when there is a causal connection between
USCA11 Case: 22-12121 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 5 of 7
22-12121 Opinion of the Court 5
the actions of a supervising official and the alleged constitutional
deprivation.” Id.
“[T]he Fourth Amendment requires that warrant applica-
tions contain sufficient information to establish probable cause.”
Holmes v. Kucynda,
321 F.3d 1069, 1083 (11th Cir. 2003). The in-
formation contained in a warrant affidavit need not be objectively
accurate, but the affiant must believe or accept that it is true.
Id. A
misstatement in an officer’s warrant affidavit amounts to a Fourth
Amendment violation if (1) there was an “intentional or reckless
misstatement or omission”; and (2) “probable cause would be ne-
gated if the offending statement was removed”. Paez v. Mulvey,
915 F.3d 1276, 1287 (11th Cir. 2019). Officers may not lie about
critical information, but negligent misstatements do not violate the
Fourth Amendment.
Id. at 1286–87.
“Where the alleged Fourth Amendment violation involves
a search or seizure pursuant to a warrant, the fact that a neutral
magistrate has issued a warrant is the clearest indication that the
officers acted in an objectively reasonable manner or . . . in ‘objec-
tive good faith.’” Messerschmidt v. Millender,
565 U.S. 535, 546
(2012) (quoting United States v. Leon,
468 U.S. 897, 922–23 (1984)).
However, “the fact that a neutral magistrate has issued a warrant
authorizing the allegedly unconstitutional search or seizure does
not end the inquiry into objective reasonableness,” and a suit will
be permitted when “it is obvious that no reasonably competent of-
ficer would have concluded that a warrant should issue.” Id. at 547
(quoting Malley v. Briggs,
475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)).
USCA11 Case: 22-12121 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 6 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 22-12121
To “establish a finding of probable cause,” a search-warrant
affidavit need only contain “sufficient information to conclude that
a fair probability existed that seizable evidence would be found in
the place sought to be searched.” United States v. Martin,
297 F.3d
1308, 1314 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Pigrum,
922
F.2d 249, 252–53 (5th Cir. 1991)). “[T]he affidavit should establish
a connection between the defendant and the residence to be
searched and a link between the residence and any criminal activ-
ity.”
Id. An affidavit that mentions an informant must demon-
strate the informant’s “veracity” and “basis of knowledge.”
Id.
(quoting Illinois v. Gates,
462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)). The veracity
of an informant need not be determined when “there is sufficient
independent corroboration of an informant’s information.”
Id.
(quoting United States v. Danhauer,
229 F.3d 1002, 1006 (10th Cir.
2000)).
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discre-
tion in dismissing Figures’s third amended complaint for failure to
state a claim. Figures had multiple opportunities to amend his
complaint to allege a factual basis in support of his Fourth Amend-
ment claims1 against the defendants, but he failed to do so. Nota-
bly, his claim of supervisor liability relied only on Sheriff Larry Ash-
ley’s supervisory position as Sheriff, which is insufficient to
1 Figures also appears to contend that he adequately pled a claim that his equal
protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated. Because
he did not raise that claim in his third amended complaint, which was the op-
erative complaint, we do not address it.
USCA11 Case: 22-12121 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 7 of 7
22-12121 Opinion of the Court 7
establish a factual basis for liability because there is no demon-
strated causal connection or personal involvement between Ashley
and Officer Joseph Gordon’s actions. As to Gordon, Figures alleged
no facts indicating that Gordon knew that the affidavit was false or
that he recklessly disregarded that possibility. Instead, he relied on
conclusory allegations. Further, the affidavit in support of his ar-
rest was not so facially deficient that no reasonable officer would
have relied on it.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
