Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-24-11700/USCOURTS-ca11-24-11700-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-11700

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

SAMUEL LEE SMITH, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JESUS VALDIVIA,

Police Officer, 

THE CITY OF MIAMI, 

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

USCA11 Case: 24-11700 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 24-11700

D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-21001-DPG

____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Lee Smith, Jr., proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s dismissal without prejudice of his complaint. The district 

court dismissed Smith’s complaint, which alleged a Fourth Amendment excessive force violation, for failure to state a claim under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). On appeal, Smith argues that his complaint 

does state a cognizable claim, at least for the alleged assault by the 

officer. Smith also argues that, even if the complaint does not state 

a cognizable claim, the district court should have permitted him to 

amend the complaint. 

“We review dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) de 

novo and view the allegations in the complaint as true.” Alba v. 

Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). The standards governing dismissals for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 

are the same as those governing dismissals under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Id. To survive a motion to dismiss under 

12(b)(6), the pleading “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed 

factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ 

of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and 

USCA11 Case: 24-11700 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 2 of 5
24-11700 Opinion of the Court 3

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 

(2007). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief 

above the speculative level.” Id. “At the pleading stage, Rule 

8(a)(2) requires that “the ‘plain statement’ possess enough heft to 

show that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. at 557 (quotation 

omitted). Where a complaint pleads facts that are simply consistent with a given defendant’s liability, the complaint “stops short 

of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id.

Generally, a plaintiff proceeding pro se must receive at least 

one opportunity to amend the complaint if he might be able to 

state a claim by doing so. Woldeab v. Dekalb Cty. Bd. of Educ., 885 

F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2018). If the plaintiff clearly indicates 

he does not want to amend his complaint, or if a plaintiff could not, 

through amendment, cure the defects in the complaint, a court 

need not grant leave to amend. Woldeab, 885 F.3d at 1291. Absent 

one of these exceptions (at least in a case involving a dismissal with 

prejudice),1 a district court must advise a pro se plaintiff of the deficiencies in his complaint and give him an opportunity to amend. 

Id. at 1291–92.

Florida’s limitations statute requires an action asserting a 

Fourth Amendment excessive force claim to be filed within four 

1 Because of the statute of limitations matter discussed below, we need not 

decide in this case the extent to which, or under what circumstances, this rule 

should apply generally when the dismissal is without prejudice.

USCA11 Case: 24-11700 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 24-11700

years. Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(o); see Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279, 

1283 (11th Cir. 2003). Generally, a dismissal without prejudice does 

not automatically toll the statute of limitations, and instead the dismissed action is treated as if it was never filed when a later action 

is filed, which itself must satisfy the limitations period. Wright v. 

Waste Pro USA, Inc., 69 F.4th 1332, 1337 (11th Cir. 2023) (citations 

omitted). Where a dismissal without prejudice would preclude a 

plaintiff from filing because of the statute of limitations, this Court 

applies “the stricter standard of review that [it] ordinarily employ[s] 

when reviewing a dismissal with prejudice,” which is a “sanction 

of last resort.” Mickles v. Country Club Inc., 887 F.3d 1270, 1280 (11th 

Cir. 2018) (quotation marks omitted). Dismissal with prejudice is 

only proper if there is a clear record of delay or willful conduct, and 

a finding that lesser sanctions are inadequate. Id. (citation omitted). 

In other words, under such circumstances, a dismissal without prejudice is “‘tantamount to a dismissal with prejudice.’” Id. at 1280 

(quoting Burden v. Yates, 644 F.2d 503, 505 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981)).

Here, the district court erred by dismissing the complaint 

without affording Smith an opportunity to amend. Given the circumstances of this case—i.e. the district court dismissed Smith’s pro 

se complaint without prejudice and administratively closed the 

case, and the fact that Smith would now be barred by the statute of 

limitations from filing a new complaint—he should have been

given an opportunity to address the district court’s concerns about 

his factual allegations, or lack thereof.

USCA11 Case: 24-11700 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 4 of 5
24-11700 Opinion of the Court 5

The judgment of the court below is hereby VACATED, and 

this case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

USCA11 Case: 24-11700 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 5 of 5