Joshua I. Martinez v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: March 31, 2026
• Docket: 24-12000
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-12000 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 1 of 6

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-12000 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

JOSHUA I. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

MAYO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Defendant, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-00021-MW-MAF ____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 24-12000 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 2 of 6

2 Opinion of the Court 24-12000

Joshua Martinez, a prisoner at Mayo Correctional Institute (“MCI”), appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his complaint al- leging violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Reviewing the District Court’s order dismissing the com- plaint de novo, we find that Martinez failed to plead factual allega- tions sufficient to sustain a claim that is plausible on its face. Ac- cordingly, we affirm. I. On December 10, 2013, Martinez was found guilty of sexual battery on a person less than 12 years of age and sentenced to 78 months’ imprisonment followed by 20 years of sex offender proba- tion. While serving his initial sentence, Martinez was found guilty of “preventing or obstructing extinguishment of fire” in violation of Fla. Stat. § 806.10(1) and damaging a sexually violent predator detention or commitment facility in violation of Fla. Stat. § 806.13(5). For these offenses, Martinez was sentenced to an addi- tional 8 years’ imprisonment, with a tentative release date of July 6, 2029. On January 23, 2024, Martinez filed an informal grievance with the MCI mental health division. In his informal grievance, Martinez stated that he was informed that he could not attend sex- offender therapy until he was within twelve months of release. He was especially concerned that his failure to participate in sex of- fender treatment would negatively affect his chance of early re- lease. USCA11 Case: 24-12000 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 3 of 6

24-12000 Opinion of the Court 3

In response, an MCI official informed Martinez that because he had approximately five years left on his sentence, he was not within the time period for the program, and therefore ineligible to participate. However, the official assured him that not participating in the program would not reflect negatively on him since he was not eligible to participate. Martinez brought this action in the Northern District of Florida seeking a declaration that, among other things, the prison’s policy to delay sex-offender treatment until twelve months from release is invidious discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The District Court dis- missed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Martinez now timely appeals the District Court’s order. He argues that the District Court erred in dismissing his complaint be- cause the policy he challenges is not rationally related to the state’s penological interests. II. We apply the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) stand- ards when reviewing sua sponte dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Henley v. Payne, 945 F.3d 1320, 1331 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997)). We review such dismissals de novo, construing the allega- tions in the complaint as true. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1159– 60 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing Mitchell, 112 F.3d at 1490). USCA11 Case: 24-12000 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 4 of 6

4 Opinion of the Court 24-12000

Pro se pleadings are “held to a less stringent standard and should be liberally construed.” Taveras v. Bank of Am., N.A., 89 F.4th 1279, 1285 (11th Cir. 2024) (citation modified). However, “this le- niency does not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168– 69 (11th Cir. 2014). III. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. To pre- vail on an equal protection claim, a plaintiff must show that “(1) he is similarly situated to other prisoners who received more favora- ble treatment; and (2) the state engaged in invidious discrimination against him based on race, religion, national origin, or some other constitutionally protected basis.” Sumrall v. Georgia Dep’t of Corr., 154 F.4th 1304, 1312 (11th Cir. 2025) (quoting Sweet v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 467 F.3d 1311, 1318–19 (11th Cir. 2006)). Pleadings must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The Supreme Court clarified in Ashcroft v. Iqbal that to sur- vive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient fac- tual allegations to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1960 USCA11 Case: 24-12000 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 5 of 6

24-12000 Opinion of the Court 5

(2007)). Legal conclusions are not “entitled to the assumption of truth,” and must be “supported by factual allegations.” Id. at 679. Martinez’s Statement of Claims section of his complaint is a mere 1.5 pages with only a single paragraph dedicated to his invid- ious discrimination claim. In that paragraph, Martinez vaguely ref- erences the fact that he was discriminated against due to the “na- ture of his violation,” but does not make any factual allegations that he was treated less favorably than a similarly situated prisoner or that the state engaged in discrimination against him on a constitu- tionally protected basis. Likewise, in the Statement of Facts section, Martinez de- votes a single paragraph to describing the conduct that gave rise to the present action. He asserts that a mental health counselor told him that since he was currently ineligible for treatment, he would have to wait until another prisoner who was eligible began treat- ment, in which case he could join that prisoner’s group. Neither of these paragraphs contains a single factual allega- tion relevant to Martinez’s invidious discrimination claim. At best, they contain vague legal conclusions and his opinion on MCI’s mental health treatment policies. In order to survive dismissal, Martinez would have had to allege facts that support the elements of his claim that similarly situated prisoners were treated more fa- vorably than him and that the state invidiously discriminated against him on a constitutionally protected basis. IV. USCA11 Case: 24-12000 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 6 of 6

6 Opinion of the Court 24-12000

Because Martinez failed to present any factual allegations that suggest that prison officials invidiously discriminated against him in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the District Court did not err in dismissing Martinez’s complaint. AFFIRMED.