Yousry Rizk v. Seminole County Sheriff

USCA11 Case: 19-12542 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-12542
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:18-cv-01414-PGB-GJK
YOUSRY RIZK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SEMINOLE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT,
Defendant,
SEMINOLE COUNTY SHERIFF,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 23, 2021)
Before BRANCH, GRANT, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 19-12542 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 2 of 4
This is an appeal of the dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failure
to state a claim. The district court gave the plaintiff two opportunities to amend
the complaint, and that is almost always plenty. The problem here, though, is that
in judging all three iterations of the complaint, the court considered only the single
defendant named in the caption of the complaint and not the other individuals who
were named or described in the body of it. The complaint recounted specific
details about what those other individuals allegedly had done to violate the
plaintiff’s rights and injure him. We need not go into all of the examples; one will
suffice. The original complaint, which the plaintiff incorporated into both of his
amended complaints, alleged that Deputy Akebo Pugh (also spelled “Pough”) took
the plaintiff to the “isolation room” so officers could assault him and that Pugh and
the others used such excessive force that it broke the plaintiff’s ribs, injured his
kidney, and nearly resulted in his death.
Apparently, the reason the district court did not address whether the plaintiff
had stated a claim against Pugh or any other deputies, or against any medical
personnel who were named and whose alleged wrongful conduct was described in
the complaint, is that none of them were named in the caption of it. Only the
Sheriff’s Department was included in the caption of the original complaint, and
only the Sheriff was included in the captions of the amended complaints.
2
USCA11 Case: 19-12542 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 3 of 4
We have indicated that a pro se complaint may state a claim against
individuals or entities who are identified in the body of it and whose wrongful
conduct is alleged there, even if they are not named in the caption. Wilger v. Dep’t
of Pensions & Sec. for Ala., 593 F.2d 12, 13 (5th Cir. 1979) (“In their pro se
complaint the Wilgers made allegations which indicate that there may be
individuals (whether state officials or others) who are amenable to suit in federal
court. The Wilgers should be allowed to amend their complaint in order to add
such parties-defendant as they choose to name.”) 1; see Lundgren v. McDaniel, 814
F.2d 600, 604 n.2 (11th Cir. 1987) (“[A]lthough captions provide helpful guidance
to the court, they are not determinative as to the parties to the action or the court’s
jurisdiction.”); see also Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t., 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir.
2007) (When a pro se plaintiff “names the wrong defendant in the caption or when
the identity of the defendants is unclear from the caption, courts may look to the
body of the complaint to determine who the intended and proper defendants are.”).
We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case to the
district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. The court in its
discretion may find it prudent to allow the complaint to be amended one more time
to clarify matters.
1
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the
Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed
down before October 1, 1981.
3
USCA11 Case: 19-12542 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 4 of 4
VACATED AND REMANDED.
4