Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-13-12614/USCOURTS-ca11-13-12614-0/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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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. 13-12614

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-62009-WJZ

FRANCIS THOMAS GREISER, JR., 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

WHITTIER TOWERS APTS. ASSOC. INC., 

MICHAEL K. SCHWEITZER, 

individually and in his official capacity as 

Whittier Towers Board President, 

MICHAEL KALOGRIDIS, 

THOMAS PIZZI, JR., 

SERGE VIDAL, et al.,

 Defendants-Appellees,

ANN MICHAELIDES,

 Defendant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(January 3, 2014)

USCA11 Case: 13-12614 Date Filed: 01/03/2014 Page: 1 of 4
2

Before PRYOR, JORDAN and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Francis Greiser, Jr. appeals pro se the dismissal of his second amended 

complaint against Whittier Towers Apartments Association Inc., a residential 

apartment association, and three of its board members, Michael K. Schweitzer, 

Michael Kalogridis, Thomas Pizzi Jr., and Serge Vidal (collectively “the 

Association”). Greiser filed an amended complaint for damages and to enjoin the 

Association from violating his right of free speech under the First Amendment by 

censoring his newsletters to homeowners; his right to be free from an “unlawful 

seizure” of his apartment under the Fourth Amendment; his right to due process

under the Fourteenth Amendment in an action to evict; and state laws that 

prohibited “fil[ing] false charges and spread[ing] false information.” The 

Association moved to dismiss Greiser’s complaint for failure to state a claim. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motion and dismissed with 

prejudice Greiser’s federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over his claims under Florida law, which the district court dismissed 

without prejudice. We affirm.

The district court correctly dismissed Greiser’s second amended complaint. 

Greiser failed to allege that the Association acted under color of state law. See 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Even if accepted as true, Greiser’s allegations failed to establish

USCA11 Case: 13-12614 Date Filed: 01/03/2014 Page: 2 of 4
3

that the State of Florida or any state entity “coerced or . . . significantly

encouraged” the Association to censor Greiser’s newsletter or to evict Greiser, see

Rayburn ex rel. Rayburn v. Hogue, 241 F.3d 1341, 1347 (11th Cir. 2001); the 

Association performed a function “exclusively reserved to the state” when it 

screened potential tenants, serviced its apartment building, or censored Greiser’s 

newsletter, see Carlin Commc’n, Inc. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 802 F.2d 1352, 

1361 (11th Cir. 1986); or the Association acted as a “surrogate for the state” by 

virtue of being incorporated under state law or using its laws to evict Greiser, see

Focus on the Family v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Auth., 344 F.3d 1263, 1279 (11th 

Cir. 2003); see also Beker Phosphate Corp. v. Muirhead, 581 F.2d 1187, 1189–90 

(5th Cir. 1978). Greiser argues, for the first time on appeal, that the “continuing 

prosecution of the state eviction action [constitutes cruel and unusual punishment

that] is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment,” but we will not consider a claim not 

presented to the district court. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 

1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004).

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over Greiser’s remaining claims under state law. A 

district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim after 

dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367(c)(3). In fact, we “encourage[ ] district courts to dismiss any remaining 

USCA11 Case: 13-12614 Date Filed: 01/03/2014 Page: 3 of 4
4

state claims when, as here, the federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.” 

Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004).

The district court also did not abuse its discretion when it denied Greiser’s 

request for injunctive relief. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must 

establish that there is a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits. See

Sofarelli v. Pinellas Cnty., 931 F.2d 718, 723–24 (11th Cir. 1991). Because 

Greier’s complaint failed to state a claim, he was not entitled to a preliminary

injunction.

We AFFIRM the dismissal of Greiser’s second amended complaint.

USCA11 Case: 13-12614 Date Filed: 01/03/2014 Page: 4 of 4