Ricardo Medrano-Arzate v. Sheriff of Okeechobee County

691 F. App'x 603
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedJune 29, 2017
Docket16-14170 Non-Argument Calendar
StatusUnpublished

This text of 691 F. App'x 603 (Ricardo Medrano-Arzate v. Sheriff of Okeechobee County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ricardo Medrano-Arzate v. Sheriff of Okeechobee County, 691 F. App'x 603 (11th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs Ricardo Medrano-Arzate and Eva Chavez Medrano,, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Hilda Medrano (Appellants), appeal the district court’s dis *604 missal of their amended complaint against Paul C. May, individually and as Sheriff of Okeechobee County, and Okeechobee County (Appellees). The complaint arises out of the death of Hilda Medrano on December 1, 2013, when the vehicle in which she was a passenger collided with a vehicle driven by Deputy Joseph Anthony Gracie of the Okeechobee County Sheriffs Office. Appellants filed suit against May, individually and in his capacity as Sheriff, and Okeechobee County, but did not file suit against Deputy Gracie. Appellants alleged that certain policies implemented by the Appellees, pursuant to which Deputy Gracie was unable to operate his lights and sirens while responding to an emergency call, caused the collision and Hilda Medra-no’s death.

While we agree with the district court that Hilda Medrano’s death was tragic, we also agree that the Appellants have failed to state a claim against the Appellees under § 1983. As Appellants do not allege that Deputy Gracie’s conduct amounted to a deprivation of Hilda Medrano’s constitutional rights, Appellants cannot maintain an action against Appellees under § 1983 based upon the policies alleged to have caused Hilda Medrano’s death. Appellants concede their claim is foreclosed by Rooney v. Watson, 101 F.3d 1378, 1381 (11th Cir. 1996) (“[A]n inquiry into a governmental entity’s custom or policy is relevant only when a constitutional deprivation has occurred.”). Thus, we affirm the district court’s dismissal. See McKusick v. City of Melbourne, 96 F.3d 478, 482 (11th Cir. 1996) (reviewing de novo a district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure state a claim).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McKusick v. City of Melbourne, FL
96 F.3d 478 (Eleventh Circuit, 1996)
Rooney Ex Rel. Rooney v. Watson
101 F.3d 1378 (Eleventh Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
691 F. App'x 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricardo-medrano-arzate-v-sheriff-of-okeechobee-county-ca11-2017.