James Thompson v. C. Del La Paz
708 F. App'x 627
11th Cir.2018Background
- Thompson, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appealed the dismissal of his complaint against prison officer C. Del La Paz for allegedly interfering with his access to courts and legal mail.
- The claims arose from an earlier federal case where a magistrate judge recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim; Thompson did not receive that report within the 14-day objection period because the district court lacked his updated address.
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the earlier case; Thompson later received the report, filed a response and a motion for reconsideration, which the district court denied.
- Thompson alleges Del La Paz prevented him from receiving the report and otherwise interfered with his legal mail, causing loss of opportunity to timely object in the earlier case.
- The district court dismissed Thompson’s subsequent § 1983 complaint for failure to state a plausible claim, concluding Thompson’s allegations were conclusory and did not identify Del La Paz as the source of the mailing failure.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, finding no factual allegations plausibly linking Del La Paz to the missed mail or showing a policy or custom of interference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Del La Paz violated Thompson’s right of access to the courts by preventing receipt of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation | Thompson: Del La Paz intercepted or otherwise prevented delivery of the report, causing Thompson to miss the objection deadline | Del La Paz (and district court record): The missed delivery resulted from the court lacking Thompson’s updated address, not attributable to Del La Paz | Held: Dismissed — Thompson alleged only conclusory fault as to Del La Paz and failed to plead facts plausibly linking Del La Paz to the missed mail |
| Whether Del La Paz interfered with Thompson’s right to receive legal mail | Thompson: Defendant’s actions obstructed receipt of legal correspondence | Defendant: No factual showing that Del La Paz handled or withheld the specific mail; grievances don’t mention Del La Paz or show a custom | Held: Dismissed — grievance forms didn’t identify Del La Paz and Thompson did not allege non-conclusory facts establishing interference |
| Whether plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a policy/custom claim based on grievance forms | Thompson: Grievance forms show a pattern or policy of mail interference | Defendant: Grievances do not mention Del La Paz or show a practice attributable to the institution or Del La Paz | Held: Dismissed — Thompson failed to plead facts connecting grievances to Del La Paz or an institutional policy |
| Whether appellate arguments about denial of leave to amend and district-court error are preserved | Thompson: Implied challenge to denial of leave and district-court ruling | Defendant/District Court: Issues not raised below or in brief are abandoned | Held: Abandoned — Thompson failed to raise these arguments on appeal, so they are not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. Ga. Reg'l Hosp., 850 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2017) (standard for de novo review of dismissal and pleading plausibility)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2012) (conclusory allegations need not be accepted as true)
- United States v. Rey, 811 F.2d 1453 (11th Cir. 1987) (courts may take judicial notice of district-court records)
- Leal v. Ga. Dep't of Corr., 254 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2001) (issues raised first on appeal generally not considered)
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (abandonment rules apply to pro se briefs)
- Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (issues not clearly raised in briefs are considered abandoned)