Gosundi Wusiya v. City of Miami Beach, 614 F. App'x 389

Background

Pro se plaintiff Gosundi Wusiya appealed dismissal of his second amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and denial of his motion for reconsideration.
Wusiya alleged a broad statewide practice of “racial felonization” (disproportionate conviction of nonwhite persons) and related conspiracies involving state actors and local officials.
He sought damages and injunctive relief, including an order correcting his conviction date to restore Social Security benefits he says were withheld while incarcerated before conviction.
Defendants included the State Attorney, two state judges, the Governor, a public defender, Miami-Dade County Mayor, Miami Beach and Miami-Dade County, and an arresting officer; many claims rested on supervisory or municipal liability theories.
The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, immunity, lack of standing for injunctive relief, absence of causal connection for municipal/supervisory liability, and Rule 58/judgment timing issues; Wusiya’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in full, concluding no reversible error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing for injunctive relief on race-discrimination claims	Wusiya: greater vulnerability to future injury establishes concrete injury and entitlement to injunction	Defendants: past injury insufficient; no imminent, real threat of future harm	Held: No standing; plaintiff alleged no real and immediate threat (Lyons guide)
Injunctive relief to correct conviction date / restore Social Security benefits	Wusiya: needed preliminary injunction because benefits were withheld while he was not yet convicted	Defendants: plaintiff had adequate legal remedies; statutory bar on paying benefits to incarcerated convicts is constitutional	Held: Denied — no adequate showing of irreparable injury or lack of remedy at law; 42 U.S.C. § 402(x)(1) valid
Immunity of prosecutors and judges	Wusiya: official conduct gave rise to § 1983 claims	Defendants: absolute immunity for prosecutorial and judicial acts	Held: Prosecutor Rundle and Judges Soto & Shepherd immune from damages (absolute immunity)
Public defender liability under § 1983	Wusiya: office responsible for alleged deprivations	Defendants: public defender performing traditional defense functions is not acting under color of state law	Held: Dismissed — Public Defender Martinez not acting under color of state law
Governor and Mayor personal / official capacity liability; municipal liability	Wusiya: officials had causal connection / policies causing harms; City/County adopted discriminatory policies or customs	Defendants: Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity damages against state; no factual causal link or municipal policy/custom alleged	Held: Damages claims against Governor in official capacity barred; no causal connection alleged for personal capacity claims; no municipal liability shown
Procedural: Rule 58 separate-judgment entry and appeal timing	Wusiya: district court erred by not entering judgment separately and by scheduling issues	Defendants: Rule 58 not violated as final judgment procedures followed; appeal timely under Rule 58(a) remedial rule	Held: No reversible error; appellate jurisdiction proper because separate judgment not entered and extended appeal period applied
Motion for reconsideration (Rule 59/60)	Wusiya: relief based on excusable neglect and meritorious claims; labeled motion under Rule 60(b)	Defendants: motion reargued merits, raised arguments that could have been earlier raised; not timely/new evidence	Held: Denied — motion characterized as Rule 59(e), no manifest error or new evidence; no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Starship Enters. of Atlanta, Inc. v. Coweta Cnty., 708 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility and rejection of bare conclusions)
Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2003) (supervisory liability and required causal connection)
Rehberg v. Paulk, 611 F.3d 828 (11th Cir. 2010) (prosecutorial absolute immunity for advocacy acts)
Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2000) (judicial absolute immunity and injunctive-relief limits)
Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981) (public defender not acting under color of state law when performing traditional defense functions)
Grech v. Clayton Cnty., 335 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2003) (municipal liability requires official policy or custom causally linked to violation)
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (Eleventh Amendment and official-capacity damages suits)
Andujar v. Bowen, 802 F.2d 404 (11th Cir. 1986) (constitutionality of Social Security confinement bar)
DeYoung v. Owens, 646 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2011) (equal protection: disparate treatment of similarly situated persons)
Scott v. Roberts, 612 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing preliminary injunction denials)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (constitutional standing requirements)
O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) (past injury insufficient for prospective relief without likelihood of recurrence)
City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (standing limits for injunctive relief from law enforcement practices)
Reynolds v. Golden Corral Corp., 213 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2000) (Rule 58 separate-judgment entry and appeal timing)
Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing motions for reconsideration)
Finch v. City of Vernon, 845 F.2d 256 (11th Cir. 1988) (classification of post-judgment motions as Rule 59(e) or 60(b))
Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2007) (grounds for granting Rule 59(e))
Grizzle v. Kemp, 634 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2011) (official-capacity injunctive suits against state officials)
Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2013) (likelihood of future injury for injunctive standing)
Gamble v. Fla. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 779 F.2d 1509 (11th Cir. 1986) (state sovereign immunity in § 1983 damages suits)