Meritan Dumel v. Capt. B.J. Elvin , 561 F. App'x 869 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-12000 Date Filed: 04/01/2014 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12000
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cv-14006-JEM
MERITAN DUMEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CAPT. B.J. ELVIN,
LT. A. COLEMAN,
WARDEN,
ASST. WARDEN COWART,
K. MURRAY,
Class. Ofc., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 1, 2014)
Case: 13-12000 Date Filed: 04/01/2014 Page: 2 of 5
Before PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Meritan Dumel, a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s sua
sponte dismissal of his complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On appeal, Dumel argues that
his complaint demonstrated that prison officials violated his right to equal
protection and acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical condition.
Although Dumel’s complaint stated other grounds for relief, he has not briefed
those claims on appeal. Thus, he has waived those claims. See Timson v.
Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), viewing the allegations in the complaint as true.
Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (11th Cir. 2003). We generally review the
denial of a motion for leave to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion. Fla.
Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 470 F.3d 1036, 1040 (11th
Cir. 2006). However, when a district court denies leave to amend because the
amendment would be futile, we review the denial de novo. Id.
When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the district court may dismiss
the complaint at any time if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). These dismissals are governed by the
2
Case: 13-12000 Date Filed: 04/01/2014 Page: 3 of 5
same standards that apply to dismissals for failure to state a claim under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215, 127 S. Ct.
910, 920-21, 166 L. Ed. 2d 798 (2007) (discussing the standards that apply to sua
sponte dismissals, including dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), in the
context of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals). To survive dismissal for failure to state a
claim, “a complaint must contain 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, 678,
129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (citation and quotations omitted).
A plaintiff must assert “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007).
“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by
attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Hughes, 350 F.3d at 1160.
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant
deprived him of a right under the U.S. Constitution or federal law and that the
deprivation occurred under color of state law. Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d
734, 737 (11th Cir. 2010). A claim that prison officials displayed “deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs” arises under the Eighth Amendment.
Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003). A claim for deliberate
indifference has both a subjective and objective component. Id. To satisfy the
3
Case: 13-12000 Date Filed: 04/01/2014 Page: 4 of 5
objective component, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he has an “objectively
serious medical need . . . that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating
treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize
the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). The
medical need must pose “a substantial risk of serious harm” if left unattended. Id.
(internal quotation omitted). To satisfy the subjective component, the plaintiff
must establish that the official acted with “deliberate indifference” to the medical
need. Richardson, 598 F.3d at 737. Deliberate indifference has the following
three requirements: “(1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2)
disregard of that risk; (3) by conduct that is more than mere negligence.” Id.
(internal quotation omitted). An official may not be liable if he or she responds
reasonably to a known risk. Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1290 (11th Cir.
2004).
“To establish an equal protection claim, a prisoner must demonstrate that (1)
he is similarly situated with other prisoners who received more favorable
treatment[] and (2) his discriminatory treatment was based on some
constitutionally protected interest such as race.” Jones v. Ray, 279 F.3d 944,
946-47 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation omitted). National origin is another
constitutionally protected interest under the Equal Protection Clause. Osborne v.
Folmar, 735 F.2d 1316, 1317 (11th Cir. 1984).
4
Case: 13-12000 Date Filed: 04/01/2014 Page: 5 of 5
The district court correctly determined that the facts set forth in Dumel’s
complaint failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. However, in light
Dumel’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, he could
have amended his complaint to state an equal protection claim. Accordingly,
because Dumel’s amendment would not have been futile, the district court should
have allowed Dumel to amend his complaint.
Upon consideration of the entire record on appeal, and after review of the
parties’ appellate briefs, we vacate and remand so that Dumel may amend his
complaint to state an equal protection claim.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
5