Gurtram K. Johnson v. Office of Social Security Administration

Case: 12-14436 Date Filed: 03/19/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14436
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-60013-KMW
GURTRAM J. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
OFFICE OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
IRAMA TRINCHET,
VERENE J. PEGUES,
EVELIN DEIVALIE,
DEBORAH DESONZD,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 19, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 12-14436 Date Filed: 03/19/2013 Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Gurtram Johnson was arrested, indicted, and tried for intimidating
employees of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”); the indictment was
dismissed after two trials with hung juries. Now Johnson, proceeding pro se,
appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging
broadly violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and alleging the torts of defamation,
slander, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants are SSA
and certain SSA employees. * After allowing Johnson to amend his original
complaint, the district court concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim
and, therefore, dismissed it with prejudice. We see no reversible error.
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), accepting the
allegations of fact in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 872 (11th Cir.
2008).
*
On appeal, Johnson -- ineffectively and incorrectly -- has named, as a defendant, the district
court judge who dismissed his complaint. Johnson, in this appeal, does not assert all the claims
that he asserted in district court and has asserted some claims he did not assert in district court;
none of these claims are correctly before us. But our decision is not based on abandonment.
2
Case: 12-14436 Date Filed: 03/19/2013 Page: 3 of 4
A court “shall dismiss” a case filed in forma pauperis if the court determines
that the complaint “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint fails to state a claim if it fails to plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).
The complaint need not include detailed factual allegations, but it must set forth
“more than labels and conclusions [or] a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action.” Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65. “Factual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct.
at 1965. “[C]onclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal
conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.” Oxford Asset
Mgmt., Ltd. v. Jaharis, 297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002).
Section 1983 confers federal jurisdiction over suits alleging the violation of
civil and constitutional rights by state actors only. Federal courts may exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims only if the state-law claims are
substantially related to a claim over which the courts have original jurisdiction.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Johnson’s complaint with
prejudice. Section 1983 does not confer federal jurisdiction over claims against
federal actors like the SSA or SSA employees. Though Johnson’s complaint could
3
Case: 12-14436 Date Filed: 03/19/2013 Page: 4 of 4
be construed as bringing its constitutional claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), Bivens actions cannot be brought
against federal agencies such as the SSA. See Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer,
510 U.S. 471, 484-86, 114 S.Ct. 996, 1004-06, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994).
Even when we read the complaint liberally and infer, as did the district
court, that Johnson intended to bring a Bivens action against the SSA employees,
his complaint failed to allege specifically enough how the employees violated his
federal constitutional rights; thus, the complaint failed to state a claim under the
United States Constitution. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974.
Johnson has also failed to plead facts sufficient to support the plausibility of his
state-law claims for libel, slander, defamation, or intentional infliction of emotional
distress. See id.AFFIRMED.
4