Case: 18-13171 Date Filed: 08/26/2019 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-13171 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cv-22301-CMA YASIR MEHMOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MS. CASTANO, SDDO - Krome SPC, JUAN ACOSTA, AFOD - Warden Krome SPC, ICE, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (August 26, 2019) Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-13171 Date Filed: 08/26/2019 Page: 2 of 5 Yasir Mehmood, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order sua sponte dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil-rights complaint, construed by the district court as a complaint under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and two of its employees. Mehmood is a native and citizen of Pakistan and lawful permanent resident who was civilly detained by ICE pending the outcome of his removal proceedings. During his detention, he filed a pro se complaint alleging that ICE denied him adequate access to legal materials, which hindered his ability to develop and present arguments in support of his efforts to appeal his criminal conviction and contest his removal. He further alleged that Cuban and other Spanish-speaking detainees were allowed more time in the law library. Because Mehmood sought to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), the district court screened his complaint and determined that it failed to state a plausible claim to relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Largely adopting the recommendations of a magistrate judge, the court determined that ICE was not subject to suit under Bivens, that Warden Acosta was not liable as a supervisor, and that Mehmood failed to state a plausible access-to-courts or equal-protection claim. With regard to the latter point, the court found that Mehmood failed to allege an actual injury to support an access-to-courts claim, see Al-Amin v. Smith, 511 F.3d 1317, 1332 (11th Cir. 2 Case: 18-13171 Date Filed: 08/26/2019 Page: 3 of 5 2008) (“‘[A]ctual injury’ is a constitutional prerequisite to an inmate’s access-to- courts claim.”), and that he failed to show that Spanish-speaking detainees in his particular unit—the medical unit—received more favorable treatment than he did. Mehmood now appeals. A district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is reviewed de novo. Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 2002). Section 1915(e) provides that an in forma pauperis action “shall” be dismissed “at any time” if it fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We liberally construe the filings of pro se parties. Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). But despite the liberal construction we afford non-lawyers who represent themselves, “issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Appellants are required to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals