Steven A. McLeod v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
679 F. App'x 840
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Pro se Florida prisoner Steven A. McLeod sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and policy-based liability against Corizon Health, the Florida DOC Secretary, the warden, and several nurses.
- The magistrate judge ordered McLeod to amend his complaint and to provide a complete statement of his prior litigation; McLeod failed to comply and argued his existing pleading was sufficient and that a prison regulation prevented him from producing prior-case materials.
- McLeod also moved to recuse the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), asserting bias based on adverse rulings; the magistrate judge denied recusal and the district court adopted that recommendation.
- The district court sua sponte dismissed McLeod’s complaint for failure to comply with the court’s order; McLeod appealed the dismissal and the denial of recusal.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the recusal and dismissal for abuse of discretion and considered whether McLeod’s allegations plausibly alleged Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference or policy-linked liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the magistrate judge should be recused under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) | McLeod said adverse rulings showed bias and impartiality could reasonably be questioned | Magistrate and district court: adverse rulings alone do not show extrajudicial bias; no extrajudicial facts alleged | Denied — no extrajudicial source or pervasive bias shown; adverse rulings insufficient |
| Whether dismissal for failure to comply with court order (to amend and provide prior-litigation history) was an abuse of discretion | McLeod argued his first amended complaint already stated an Eighth Amendment claim and prison regulation prevented him from providing prior-case records | Court: order to amend was reasonable; McLeod failed to meet Rule 8 and ignored repeated directives; he could attempt to provide litigation history and abandoned the argument on appeal | Affirmed — dismissal appropriate; lesser sanctions inadequate given McLeod’s refusal to comply |
| Whether McLeod’s pleadings plausibly alleged municipal/policy liability against Corizon and DOC officials | McLeod alleged vague policies of inadequate care, profit-driven decisions, and inadequate supervision causing deliberate indifference | Court: allegations were conclusory and lacked factual nexus between alleged policies and constitutional harm | Held: allegations speculative and insufficient under Twombly/Iqbal to state plausible policy-based liability |
| Whether nurses’ conduct rose to Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference | McLeod claimed nurses provided inadequate treatment for a knee injury | Defendants: nurses treated McLeod; disagreement over treatment is not deliberate indifference | Held: treatment was provided; allegations show disagreement with medical judgment, not deliberate indifference |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (application of plausibility standard to constitutional claims)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates Eighth Amendment)
- Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479 (standards for dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply with court orders)
- Scrushy, 721 F.3d 1288 (recusal standard under § 455 and objective lay observer test)
- United States v. Berger, 375 F.3d 1223 (adverse rulings insufficient to show judicial bias)
- Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscaping Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232 (district court docket-control and dismissal authority)
- Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235 (components of deliberate indifference claim)