Jose Guerrero Lozano, Jr. v. Collier County, Florida

── Jose Guerrero Lozano, Jr. v. Collier County, Florida ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: June 09, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-14037 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-14037 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ JOSE GUERRERO LOZANO, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus COLLIER COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA, Sheriff's Department, ARMOR HEALTH, LLC, Medical Contractor to Collier County, FLA, ZINIA RODRIGUEZ, Medical Nurse, COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:25-cv-00725-SPC-DNF ____________________ USCA11 Case: 25-14037 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 25-14037 Before LUCK, LAGOA, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-Appellant Jose Guerrero Lozano, Jr. appeals the dis- trict court’s dismissal of his complaint against Defendants-Appel- lees Collier County, medical contractor Armor Health, Nurse Zinia Rodriguez, and Sheriff Kevin Rambosk (collectively, Appellees). On appeal, Lozano argues that he adequately alleged a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After careful review, we affirm the district court’s dismissal without prejudice. I. Proceeding pro se before the district court, Lozano sued Ap- pellees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Eighth Amend- ment and the ADA. Lozano alleged that despite their knowledge of his mobility-related disability, Appellees failed to follow official policy and provide him a shower with handrails. Because of this failure, Lozano suffered injuries after falling in a shower that lacked handrails or seats. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the district court dismissed Lozano’s initial complaint for failure to state a claim because he failed to es- tablish either the subjective or objective components of an Eighth Amendment claim, which in turn prohibited his ADA claim. The court explained that Lozano’s complaint, in which he claims that he has a mobility-related disability, is not enough to establish that requiring him to shower without handrails created an unreasona- ble risk of serious harm. The court further explained that Lozano USCA11 Case: 25-14037 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 3 of 5 25-14037 Opinion of the Court 3 also failed to allege facts that would establish deliberate indiffer- ence. The court instructed Lozano on what he needed to include in his amended complaint: details about his disability, what he told the defendants about his disability before his fall, and how the de- fendants responded. Lozano filed an amended complaint. But the district court again dismissed Lozano’s amended complaint for fail- ure to state a claim for the same reasons as his original complaint, explaining that “Lozano’s allegation that a booking officer assigned him to open population despite knowledge of an unspecified disa- bility is not enough to establish a claim.” Lozano timely appealed