Background
Jose Guerrero Lozano, Jr., proceeding pro se in the district court, sued Collier County, Armor Health, Nurse Zinia Rodriguez, and the sheriff under Section 1983 for alleged Eighth Amendment violations and under the Americans with Disabilities Act. He alleged that despite knowledge of his mobility-related disability, the defendants failed to provide him a shower with handrails, and he was injured after falling in a shower that lacked handrails or seats. The district court screened the case under federal screening statutes and dismissed the initial complaint for failure to state a claim, explaining that Lozano had not established the objective or subjective components of an Eighth Amendment claim and had not alleged enough facts to support his ADA theory. The court instructed him to add details about his disability, what he told defendants before the fall, and how they responded. After Lozano filed an amended complaint, the district court again dismissed for failure to state a claim, and he appealed with counsel.
The court’s reasoning
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo under the screening statutes governing prisoner complaints. The court explained that ADA plaintiffs typically may obtain injunctive relief, but Lozano’s request for injunctive relief was moot because he was no longer in custody at Collier County. That left only his claim for compensatory damages. For that relief, the court said Lozano had to allege intentional discrimination, which in this context required deliberate indifference. The court described deliberate indifference as an exacting standard requiring proof that the defendant knew harm to a federally protected right was substantially likely and failed to act on that likelihood. For government-entity liability, the plaintiff also had to show that an official with authority to address the alleged discrimination and institute corrective measures had actual knowledge of discrimination in the entity’s programs and failed adequately to respond. Applying that standard, the court concluded that even liberally construing the amended complaint, Lozano did not adequately allege facts showing deliberate indifference. His assertion that his injuries were caused by all defendants’ deliberate indifference was treated as a legal conclusion rather than a factual allegation. The court also noted that Lozano did not argue deliberate indifference on appeal. It rejected his argument that the district court had relied solely on sovereign immunity and stated that the district court properly dismissed because Lozano failed to follow prior instructions to add specificity.
Deliberate indifference is an “exacting standard [requiring] proof that the defendant knew that harm to a federally protected right was substantially likely and failed to act on that likelihood.”
Opinion at 4
What it means going forward
The decision leaves the dismissal without prejudice in place and underscores that a plaintiff seeking ADA damages over jail conditions must plead concrete facts showing deliberate indifference by officials with authority to address the alleged discrimination. It also confirms that transfer or release can moot requests for injunctive relief tied to conditions at a particular facility.