affirming dismissal of Bivens claim alleging defendants illegally took plaintiff’s DNA sample when “defendants were acting within the scope of their authority in obtaining a DNA sample”
How later courts described this case
- affirming dismissal of Bivens claim alleging defendants illegally took plaintiff’s DNA sample when “defendants were acting within the scope of their authority in obtaining a DNA sample”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case: 13-13392 Date Filed: 08/14/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-13392
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:12-cv-00315-WTH-PRL
ROOSEVELT SIMMONS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
K. CIMOCK,
Unit Manager,
FNU WILLIAMS,
Captain,
D.B. DREW,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 14, 2014)
Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-13392 Date Filed: 08/14/2014 Page: 2 of 3
Roosevelt Simmons, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),
alleging that the defendants, various prison officials and staff, illegally took a
sample of his DNA shortly after the commencement of his incarceration. Upon
review, 1 we affirm.
The district court did not err in dismissing the complaint with prejudice
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because the defendants were acting within the scope of
their authority in obtaining a DNA sample, see 42 U.S.C. § 14135a; 28 C.F.R.
§ 28.12, and Simmons has failed to show that the defendants’ actions violated any
clearly-established constitutional rights, see Andujar v. Rodriguez, 486 F.3d 1199,
1202-03 (11th Cir. 2007). Simmons argues the defendants should have sought to
obtain his DNA sample closer to his release date rather than shortly after his arrival
at the prison, but he has not shown any authority establishing this rule, nor has he
shown that a violation of this rule amounts to a constitutional violation sufficient to
support a claim under Bivens, 403 U.S. at 397. Accordingly, the defendants are
entitled to qualified immunity from Simmons’ claim, and the district court did not
err in dismissing the complaint. Moreover, the district court did not err in
1
We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true and construing them in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff. Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 363 F.3d
1183, 1187 (11th Cir. 2004).
2
Case: 13-13392 Date Filed: 08/14/2014 Page: 3 of 3
dismissing without leave to amend because Simmons never requested leave to
amend his complaint to remedy any deficiencies, see Access Now, Inc. v. Sw.
Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004), and because the record gives
no indication that an amendment would not have been futile, see Corsello v.
Lincare, Inc., 428 F.3d 1008, 1014 (11th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.
3