Ricardo Medrano-Arzate, et al v. Sheriff of Okeechobee County, et al


Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Eva Chavez-Medrano and Ricardo Medrano-Arzate. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Download PDF
Case: 16-14170 Date Filed: 06/29/2017 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-14170 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:15-cv-14408-RLR RICARDO MEDRANO-ARZATE, EVA CHAVEZ-MEDRANO, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF HILDA MEDRANDO, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus SHERIFF OF OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, Paul C. May, individually, OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (June 29, 2017) Before HULL, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM: Case: 16-14170 Date Filed: 06/29/2017 Page: 2 of 3 Plaintiffs Ricardo Medrano-Arzate and Eva Chavez Medrano, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Hilda Medrano (Appellants), appeal the district court’s dismissal of their amended complaint against Paul C. May, individually and as Sheriff of Okeechobee County, and Okeechobee County (Appellees). The complaint arises out of the death of Hilda Medrano on December 1, 2013, when the vehicle in which she was a passenger collided with a vehicle driven by Deputy Joseph Anthony Gracie of the Okeechobee County Sheriff’s Office. Appellants filed suit against May, individually and in his capacity as Sheriff, and Okeechobee County, but did not file suit against Deputy Gracie. Appellants alleged that certain policies implemented by the Appellees, pursuant to which Deputy Gracie was unable to operate his lights and sirens while responding to an emergency call, caused the collision and Hilda Medrano’s death. While we agree with the district court that Hilda Medrano’s death was tragic, we also agree that the Appellants have failed to state a claim against the Appellees under § 1983. As Appellants do not allege that Deputy Gracie’s conduct amounted to a deprivation of Hilda Medrano’s constitutional rights, Appellants cannot maintain an action against Appellees under § 1983 based upon the policies alleged to have caused Hilda Medrano’s death. Appellants concede their claim is foreclosed by Rooney v. Watson, 101 F.3d 1378, 1381 (11th Cir. 1996) (“[A]n inquiry into a governmental entity’s custom or policy is relevant only when a 2 Case: 16-14170 Date Filed: 06/29/2017 Page: 3 of 3 constitutional deprivation has occurred.”). Thus, we affirm the district court’s dismissal. See McKusick v. City of Melbourne, 96 F.3d 478, 482 (11th Cir. 1996) (reviewing de novo a district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure state a claim). AFFIRMED. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?