USCA11 Case: 25-14239 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 1 of 6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-14239 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________
ANDREW MELENDEZ-GONZALEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus
MR. LOSSE, Medical Supervisor, Coleman II USP, MRS. PIQUOIN, Medical Staff, Coleman II USP, MRS. MERCALDO, Medical Supervisor, Coleman II USP, WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - USP II, Defendants-Appellees, ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY COORDINATOR OF SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE, Defendant. USCA11 Case: 25-14239 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 2 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 25-14239 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 5:25-cv-00121-KKM-PRL ____________________
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ABUDU and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Andrew Melendez-Gonzalez, a federal prisoner, appeals the sua sponte dismissal of his pro se complaint of inadequate medical treatment and denial of due process, see Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Melendez-Gonzalez filed a pro se complaint that prison offi- cials violated his Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights by denying him adequate medical treatment and by denying him redress under the grievance process for the Bureau of Prisons. He alleged that he suffered from a painful lump in his throat that prison officials had treated without success. The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint with- out prejudice under section 1915A. It ruled that because Melendez- Gonzalez sued federal officials for violating his constitutional rights, his claims, liberally construed, must arise, if at all, under Bivens, not the federal statute that he cited, which governs civil- rights violations by state officials, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district USCA11 Case: 25-14239 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 3 of 6
25-14239 Opinion of the Court 3
court explained that the Supreme Court has recognized an implied right of action under Bivens in only three contexts and that Melen- dez-Gonzalez’s claims did not arise in any of those contexts. It con- cluded that the facts supporting his alleged claim under the Eighth Amendment were meaningfully different from the facts of Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980), based on our decision in Johnson v. Terry, 119 F.4th 840 (11th Cir. 2024). It also ruled that Melendez- Gonzalez’s claim under the Fifth Amendment meaningfully differs from the claim of sex discrimination in Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979). It dismissed his complaint without prejudice to his filing an amended complaint. After Melendez-Gonzalez filed an amended complaint, the district court dismissed it with prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review a sua sponte dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim under § 1915A de novo. Christmas v. Nabors, 76 F.4th 1320, 1328 (11th Cir. 2023). III. DISCUSSION Melendez-Gonzalez argues that the district court held him to the same pleading standards as an attorney even though he is a pro se litigant and that it should have given him leave to amend his complaint to cure his pleading deficiencies. He argues that his Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim falls within the prisoner-medical context recognized in Carlson. And he argues that his Fifth Amendment claim should not have been dismissed. USCA11 Case: 25-14239 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 4 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 25-14239
Under section 1915A, a district court shall review, as soon as practicable, a prisoner’s civil complaint against officials, and dismiss it if it “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b)(1). The same standards that apply to dismissals for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) apply under section 1915A(b)(1). Christmas, 76 F.4th at 1328. To survive dismissal, a prisoner’s complaint must allege enough plausible facts, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). We construe pro se pleadings liberally. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). In Bivens, the Supreme Court recognized an implied right of action for damages against federal officials for violations of consti- tutional rights. See Johnson v. Terry, 119 F.4th 840, 847 (11th Cir. 2024). Bivens involved a Fourth Amendment violation, 403 U.S. at 394-97, and the Supreme Court has extended Bivens to only two other contexts: sex discrimination, in violation of the Fifth Amend- ment, in Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 248-49 (1979), and deliber- ate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, in Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 16 (1980). Since Bivens, Davis, and Carlson, the Supreme Court has clar- ified that the extension of Bivens remedies beyond these three con- texts is “disfavored.” Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 135 (2017). To determine whether a claim is cognizable under Bivens, district courts must first evaluate whether the case presents a new Bivens context—that is, whether it meaningfully differs from the USCA11 Case: 25-14239 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 5 of 6
25-14239 Opinion of the Court 5
three contexts where the Supreme Court has permitted an implied right of action. Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 492 (2022). We consider whether the cases have any relevant differences, not whether they are mostly the same. Johnson, 119 F.4th at 859. If the claim presents a new context, the district court must determine whether any spe- cial factors suggest that the courts are at least arguably less equipped than Congress to weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed. Egbert, 596 U.S. at 492. “If there is even a single reason to pause before applying Bivens in a new con- text, a court may not recognize a Bivens remedy.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In Johnson, a federal prisoner brought an action under Bivens alleging that officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they inadequately treated injuries to his jaw, hand, and foot. Johnson, 119 F.4th at 843-46.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA11 Case: 25-14239 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 1 of 6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-14239 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________
ANDREW MELENDEZ-GONZALEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus
MR. LOSSE, Medical Supervisor, Coleman II USP, MRS. PIQUOIN, Medical Staff, Coleman II USP, MRS. MERCALDO, Medical Supervisor, Coleman II USP, WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - USP II, Defendants-Appellees, ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY COORDINATOR OF SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE, Defendant. USCA11 Case: 25-14239 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 2 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 25-14239 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 5:25-cv-00121-KKM-PRL ____________________
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ABUDU and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Andrew Melendez-Gonzalez, a federal prisoner, appeals the sua sponte dismissal of his pro se complaint of inadequate medical treatment and denial of due process, see Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Melendez-Gonzalez filed a pro se complaint that prison offi- cials violated his Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights by denying him adequate medical treatment and by denying him redress under the grievance process for the Bureau of Prisons. He alleged that he suffered from a painful lump in his throat that prison officials had treated without success. The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint with- out prejudice under section 1915A. It ruled that because Melendez- Gonzalez sued federal officials for violating his constitutional rights, his claims, liberally construed, must arise, if at all, under Bivens, not the federal statute that he cited, which governs civil- rights violations by state officials, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district USCA11 Case: 25-14239 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 3 of 6
25-14239 Opinion of the Court 3
court explained that the Supreme Court has recognized an implied right of action under Bivens in only three contexts and that Melen- dez-Gonzalez’s claims did not arise in any of those contexts. It con- cluded that the facts supporting his alleged claim under the Eighth Amendment were meaningfully different from the facts of Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980), based on our decision in Johnson v. Terry, 119 F.4th 840 (11th Cir. 2024). It also ruled that Melendez- Gonzalez’s claim under the Fifth Amendment meaningfully differs from the claim of sex discrimination in Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979). It dismissed his complaint without prejudice to his filing an amended complaint. After Melendez-Gonzalez filed an amended complaint, the district court dismissed it with prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review a sua sponte dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim under § 1915A de novo. Christmas v. Nabors, 76 F.4th 1320, 1328 (11th Cir. 2023). III. DISCUSSION Melendez-Gonzalez argues that the district court held him to the same pleading standards as an attorney even though he is a pro se litigant and that it should have given him leave to amend his complaint to cure his pleading deficiencies. He argues that his Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim falls within the prisoner-medical context recognized in Carlson. And he argues that his Fifth Amendment claim should not have been dismissed. USCA11 Case: 25-14239 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 4 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 25-14239
Under section 1915A, a district court shall review, as soon as practicable, a prisoner’s civil complaint against officials, and dismiss it if it “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b)(1). The same standards that apply to dismissals for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) apply under section 1915A(b)(1). Christmas, 76 F.4th at 1328. To survive dismissal, a prisoner’s complaint must allege enough plausible facts, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). We construe pro se pleadings liberally. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). In Bivens, the Supreme Court recognized an implied right of action for damages against federal officials for violations of consti- tutional rights. See Johnson v. Terry, 119 F.4th 840, 847 (11th Cir. 2024). Bivens involved a Fourth Amendment violation, 403 U.S. at 394-97, and the Supreme Court has extended Bivens to only two other contexts: sex discrimination, in violation of the Fifth Amend- ment, in Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 248-49 (1979), and deliber- ate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, in Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 16 (1980). Since Bivens, Davis, and Carlson, the Supreme Court has clar- ified that the extension of Bivens remedies beyond these three con- texts is “disfavored.” Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 135 (2017). To determine whether a claim is cognizable under Bivens, district courts must first evaluate whether the case presents a new Bivens context—that is, whether it meaningfully differs from the USCA11 Case: 25-14239 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 5 of 6
25-14239 Opinion of the Court 5
three contexts where the Supreme Court has permitted an implied right of action. Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 492 (2022). We consider whether the cases have any relevant differences, not whether they are mostly the same. Johnson, 119 F.4th at 859. If the claim presents a new context, the district court must determine whether any spe- cial factors suggest that the courts are at least arguably less equipped than Congress to weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed. Egbert, 596 U.S. at 492. “If there is even a single reason to pause before applying Bivens in a new con- text, a court may not recognize a Bivens remedy.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In Johnson, a federal prisoner brought an action under Bivens alleging that officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they inadequately treated injuries to his jaw, hand, and foot. Johnson, 119 F.4th at 843-46. We concluded that, although Carlson recognized a Bivens action for deliberate indiffer- ence, Johnson’s claims presented a new context because the sever- ity, type, and treatment of his injuries were different from those in Carlson, which involved fatal injuries. Id. at 858-59. We held that special factors weighed against extending Bivens to this new con- text, where an administrative remedy was available to the prisoner. Id. at 860. The district court did not err. Contrary to Melendez-Gonza- lez’s argument, the district court liberally construed his complaint and granted him leave to file an amended complaint. Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. Even so, both Melendez-Gonzalez’s original and USCA11 Case: 25-14239 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 6 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 25-14239
amended complaints failed to state a claim for relief because his claims do not fall within any of the three contexts recognized by the Supreme Court for an implied right of action against federal officials. See Bivens, 403 U.S. at 394-97; Davis, 442 U.S. at 348-49; Carlson, 446 U.S. at 16. As was true of the federal prisoner’s com- plaint of deliberate indifference in Johnson, Melendez-Gozalez’s claim of deliberate indifference failed where he had and pursued an available administrative remedy. See Johnson, 119 F.4th at 858-59. And his claim of a denial of due process under the Fifth Amend- ment differs substantially from the claim of sex discrimination in Davis. IV. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the dismissal of Melendez-Gonzalez’s com- plaint for failure to state a claim for relief.