From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mann v. McNeil

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Jan 6, 2010
360 F. App'x 31 (11th Cir. 2010)

Summary

holding vague back injuries and scrapes amounted to de minimis injuries

Summary of this case from Simpson v. Guess

Opinion

No. 09-10995 Non-Argument Calendar.

January 6, 2010.

John W. Mann, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 08-00473-CV-OC-10-GRJ.

Before MARCUS, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.


John W. Mann, a pro se prisoner, appeals the sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint alleging an Eighth Amendment violation for cruel and unusual punishment, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). On appeal, Mann contends that: (1) the district court erred in dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim after it determined that Mann was not entitled to damages for mental anguish and suffering because he failed to allege sufficient physical injury; and (2) he is entitled to declaratory relief in the form of a prison transfer. After thorough review, we affirm.

We review de novo an appeal from a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, taking all factual allegations as true. Douglas v. Yates, 535 F.3d 1316, 1319-20 (11th Cir. 2008). The same standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) also govern § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals. Id. at 1320. " Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed." Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006).

"No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). "In order to avoid dismissal under § 1997e(e), a prisoner's claims for emotional or mental injury must be accompanied by allegations of physical injuries that are greater than de minimis." Mitchell v. Brown Williamson Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d 1309, 1312-13 (11th Cir. 2002). We have previously held that a forced "dry shave" only amounted to a de minimis injury. Harris v. Garner, 190 F.3d 1279, 1286-87 (11th Cir. 1999), vacated, 197 F.3d 1059, reinstated in relevant part, 216 F.3d 970, 972 (11th Cir. 2000) ( en banc); see also Nolin v. Isbell, 207 F.3d 1253, 1258 n. 4 (11th Cir. 2000) (bruises received during an arrest were non-actionable de minimis injury). Even though § 1997e(e) bars damages for mental or emotional injury, it does not affect the availability of declaratory or injunctive relief. See Harris, 190 F.3d at 1288.

Here, under our case law, the injuries that Mann complains of — including the vague injuries to his back, the scrapes and marks on his knees and legs, the lack of personal items, the lapse of time in reordering medication, the window-cleaning assignment, and the discontinuance of his pass for showers twice a day — amount to de minimis physical injuries. See Nolin, 207 F.3d at 1258 n. 4. Section 1997e(e), therefore, bars Mann's claim for damages as a result of mental anguish and suffering. See Mitchell, 294 F.3d at 1312-13.

Mann's alleged eye infection and his injuries stemming from his tooth extraction were not alleged in his complaint and therefore have been abandoned. See Skinner v. City of Miami, 62 F.3d 344, 348 (11th Cir. 1995) ("[A]s a general rule, an appellate court will not consider a legal issue or theory raised for the first time on appeal.").

Moreover, Mann contends that all of the alleged abuse by prison officials stemmed from one initial complaint at his former prison, for which he already received a prison transfer. Thus, Mann's current request for declaratory relief in the form of a prison transfer is moot. See Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1267 (11th Cir. 2007) ("The general rule in our circuit is that a transfer or a release of a prisoner from prison will moot that prisoner's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief."). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Mann's complaint. AFFIRMED.

In addition, Mann's motion to submit supplemental records is DENIED as moot.


Summaries of

Mann v. McNeil

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Jan 6, 2010
360 F. App'x 31 (11th Cir. 2010)

holding vague back injuries and scrapes amounted to de minimis injuries

Summary of this case from Simpson v. Guess

holding vague back injuries and scrapes amounted to de minimis injuries

Summary of this case from Logan v. Spreadly

holding vague back injuries and scrapes amounted to de minimis injuries

Summary of this case from Zink v. Colombani

holding vague back injuries and scrapes amounted to de minimis injuries

Summary of this case from Cobb v. Howard

holding plaintiff's claims of vague injuries to his back and scrapes and marks on his knees and legs were barred by § 1997e(e)

Summary of this case from Jenkins v. Davis

holding that § 1997e(e) barred inmate's claims for monetary damages; inmate's complaints of vague injuries to his back and scrapes and marks on his knees and legs did not amount to more than de minimis physical injury

Summary of this case from Delices v. Lowery

holding vague back injuries and scrapes amounted to de minimis injuries

Summary of this case from Milledge v. Tucker

holding vague back injuries and scrapes amounted to de minimis injuries

Summary of this case from Burgess v. Rouse

holding vague back injuries and scrapes amounted to de minimis injuries

Summary of this case from Hoffmann v. McCray

holding that § 1997e(e) barred inmate's claims for monetary damages; inmate's complaints of vague injuries to his back and scrapes and marks on his knees and legs did not amount to more than de minimis physical injury

Summary of this case from Staten v. Barlow

holding that § 1997e(e) barred inmate's claims for monetary damages; inmate's complaints of vague injuries to his back and scrapes and marks on his knees and legs did not amount to more than de minimis physical injury

Summary of this case from Thompson v. Walsh

holding that § 1997e(e) barred inmate's claims for monetary damages; inmate's complaints of vague injuries to his back and scrapes and marks on his knees and legs did not amount to more than de minimis physical injury

Summary of this case from Merritt v. Godfrey

holding that § 1997e(e) barred prisoner's claims for monetary damage because prisoner's complaints of vague injuries to back and scrapes and marks on knees and legs did not amount to more than de minimis physical injury

Summary of this case from Jinks v. Medlin

holding the injuries alleged, including scrapes to knees and legs, are de minimis

Summary of this case from West v. Temple

holding that § 1997e(e) barred inmate's claims for monetary damages; inmate's complaints of vague injuries to his back and scrapes and marks on his knees and legs did not amount to more than de minimis physical injury

Summary of this case from Vansparrentak v. Hall

finding that "the injuries that [plaintiff] complain[ed] of—including the vague injuries to his back, the scrapes and marks on his knees and legs, the lack of personal items, the lapse of time in reordering medication, the window-cleaning assignment, and the discontinuance of his pass for showers twice a day—amount[ed] to de minimis physical injuries" thereby barring damages for mental anguish and suffering

Summary of this case from Conrad v. Dunn

finding vague injuries to the prisoner's back and scrapes and marks to his knees and legs were de minimis physical injuries

Summary of this case from Blount v. Hodge

finding that "the injuries that [plaintiff] complain[ed] of—including the vague injuries to his back, the scrapes and marks on his knees and legs, the lack of personal items, the lapse of time in reordering medication, the window-cleaning assignment, and the discontinuance of his pass for showers twice a day—amount[ed] to de minimis physical injuries" thereby barring damages for mental anguish and suffering

Summary of this case from Riggins v. Myers

affirming the district court's sua sponte dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment because plaintiff's asserted injuries "amount to de minimis physical injuries" (vague back injuries and scrapes and marks on his knees and legs)

Summary of this case from Shipman v. Lister

affirming dismissal under § 1997e(e) of prisoner's claims for monetary damage because prisoner's complaints of vague injuries to back and scrapes and marks on knees and legs did not amount to more than de minimis physical injury

Summary of this case from Newton v. Huffman
Case details for

Mann v. McNeil

Case Details

Full title:John W. MANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Walter A. MCNEIL, secretary…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Jan 6, 2010

Citations

360 F. App'x 31 (11th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Shipman v. Lister

It is not a sore muscle, an aching back, a scratch, an abrasion, a bruise, etc., which lasts even up to two…

Pierre v. Padgett

"In order to avoid dismissal under § 1997e(e), a prisoner's claims for emotional or mental injury must be…