Juan Vega v. Jon Carner

── Juan Vega v. Jon Carner ── Case No.: 24-14063 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 11, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-14063 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2026 Page: 1 of 12 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-14063 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ JUAN FRANCISCO VEGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JON P. CARNER, DAKOTA CARDENAS, Defendants-Appellees, JOHN DOE, et al., Defendants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-00202-SPC-KCD ____________________ Before KIDD, BLACK, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 24-14063 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2026 Page: 2 of 12 2 Opinion of the Court 24-14063 Juan Vega, a civil detainee at the Florida Civil Commitment Center (“FCCC”) proceeding pro se, sued (1) Jon Carner, an FCCC administrator, and (2) Dakota Cardenas, an FCCC guard, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Vega asserted that Carner and Cardenas violated his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights by (1) re- moving him from the FCCC general population and placing him into the “Special Management Unit” based on a pending criminal investigation into whether he had attempted to defraud other de- tainees, and (2) failing to provide him prompt medical care when he removed the stitches from a surgical incision after a recent pace- maker operation. The district court granted summary judgment to Carner and Cardenas as to both claims. Vega appeals that grant. After review,1 we affirm. I. DISCUSSION A. Special Management Unit “Under the Fourteenth Amendment, those who are civilly committed enjoy a substantive-due-process right to liberty inter- ests in, among other things, safety and freedom from bodily re- straint.” Bilal v. Geo Care, LLC, 981 F.3d 903, 912 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982)). “Nevertheless, a 1 “We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, viewing all evidence and drawing all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the non- moving party.” McCreight v. AuburnBank, 117 F.4th 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 2024) (quotation marks omitted). USCA11 Case: 24-14063 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2026 Page: 3 of 12 24-14063 Opinion of the Court 3 civilly committed individual’s right to freedom from bodily re- straint is not absolute.” Id. “We apply a balancing test to deter- mine whether a State’s restraints on a civilly committed person vi- olate that individual’s substantive-due-process rights. In particular, we balance the person’s liberty interests against the reasons the State sets forth for restricting the individual’s liberty.” Id. “When we do so, we keep in mind that those who have been involuntarily civilly committed are due a higher standard of care than those who have been criminally committed, since the conditions of confine- ment for the criminally committed are ‘designed to punish,’ but those of the civill