Noel Castro v. Jewel

Castro · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division · December 22, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-1035-SPC-NPM

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed Noel Castro’s amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against a jail healthcare provider without prejudice. The court held that Castro’s allegation that the provider initially denied his request for diabetic shoes did not plausibly establish deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, particularly because he later received appropriate shoes and podiatric treatment. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case.

Court
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division
Decision date
December 22, 2025
Docket number
2:25-cv-1035-SPC-NPM
Procedural posture
Sua sponte screening of an amended § 1983 complaint filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Standard of review
Under the § 1915(e)(2) screening standard, applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court determines whether the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. A complaint must plead facts sufficient to make the claim facially plausible.
Precedential value
unpublished district court opinion
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

motions to dismisssection 1983prisoners rightsfourteenth amendmentcivil rights

Practice areas

civil rightsconstitutional lawprisoner litigationmedical care liabilityfederal civil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Castro's amended complaint plausibly alleged that Jewel was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  2. Whether the amended complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 sufficient to survive screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Rule 12(b)(6).

Holdings

  1. The amended complaint failed to state a deliberate-indifference claim because the allegation that Jewel initially denied diabetic shoes did not show that she was subjectively aware that her conduct created a substantial risk of serious harm, and the subsequent provision of shoes and podiatric treatment showed a reasonable response to Castro's condition.
  2. The amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) and Rule 12(b)(6).

Key quotations

This plausibility standard requires “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” (556 U.S. at 678)
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’ proscribed by the Eighth Amendment. (429 U.S. at 104)
must show that the defendant was actually, subjectively aware that his own conduct caused a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff. (106 F.4th at 1262)
if he ‘responded reasonably to that risk.’ (106 F.4th at 1262)

Factual background

Castro was a pretrial detainee at the Lee County Jail and sued jail healthcare provider Ms. Jewel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Jewel initially denied his request for diabetic shoes. After Castro developed blisters and ulcers on his toes, jail staff provided appropriate shoes and sent him to a podiatrist. Castro sought $100,000 in compensatory damages and alleged violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Procedural history

Castro, a pretrial detainee, filed an original complaint that the court dismissed for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. The court screened the amended complaint and dismissed it without prejudice for failure to state a claim, directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions and deadlines, enter judgment, and close the case.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…