Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-14036/USCOURTS-ca11-15-14036-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Appellee
Laura McKinley
Appellant

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-14036

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:15-cv-00071-LGW-RSB

LAURA MCKINLEY,

Plaintiff–Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION,

as Receiver of Oglethorpe Bank,

Defendant–Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(March 11, 2016)

Before HULL, MARCUS, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 15-14036 Date Filed: 03/11/2016 Page: 1 of 5
2

Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff Laura McKinley sued the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation. Plaintiff titled the complaint, “Counterclaim / Counter 

Complaint.” On the same day, Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis. In 

considering the motion, the magistrate judge began a review under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), which permits a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis

complaint sua sponte if the complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim. 

The magistrate judge deferred ruling on Plaintiff’s motion because the 

magistrate judge detected several procedural errors and ambiguities in the 

complaint. Most notably, the magistrate judge explained the difficulty in 

comprehending the complaint:

[Plaintiff]’s Complaint in the action now before the Court is 

difficult to follow. She begins with what appears to be a 

rewording of the conclusion of the Court’s summary judgment

ruling in [another action], though she does not reference that 

case. She then includes information regarding Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 13 and 15 and O.C.G.A. § 9-11-13. In several 

enumerated paragraphs, [Plaintiff] then appears to attack the

[Defendant]’s claims in [a third action], though the Complaint 

does not reference that case either. The Complaint then 

includes a lengthy argument section that cites to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12 and states why various claims should be 

dismissed. Though it is not clear, it appears that this argument 

section also refers to the claims pending against [Plaintiff] and 

her codefendants in [the third action]. [Plaintiff] concludes her 

Complaint with a request that she be “personally released from 

[Defendant’s] lawsuit” and that her contract, “which was not 

voided, be paid out in full.” She also requests that the Court 

“reverse the prior denial of summary judgement.”

USCA11 Case: 15-14036 Date Filed: 03/11/2016 Page: 2 of 5
3

The magistrate judge concluded, “Even after a careful reading of [Plaintiff]’s 

Complaint, the Court is in the dark as to what legal claims she seeks to assert 

against [Defendant] and the factual basis for those claims.” 

A review of the complaint confirms the difficulty of interpreting Plaintiff’s 

complaint. Most notably, large portions of the complaint resemble a motion to 

dismiss a complaint in an unidentified action. For example, the complaint contains

a “Summary of Defendants’ Arguments” section in which Plaintiff stated, “The 

ordinary negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims should be dismissed as 

against [Plaintiff].” 

Despite Plaintiff’s opaque complaint, the magistrate judge recognized that 

Plaintiff might nonetheless amend the complaint to state a claim. Accordingly, the 

magistrate judge deferred ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

and instead (1) directed Plaintiff to amend the complaint and (2) instructed 

Plaintiff on how to cure the complaint’s deficiencies. The magistrate judge 

identified Rules 8 and 10, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for help in crafting a 

complaint. Further, the magistrate judge advised Plaintiff on how to accomplish

varying goals. For example, the magistrate judge stated, “[I]f [Plaintiff] is seeking 

to defend the claims that [Defendant] has asserted against her in [another action], 

she must assert her defenses via pleadings in that action, not through this separate

USCA11 Case: 15-14036 Date Filed: 03/11/2016 Page: 3 of 5
4

civil case.” Finally, the magistrate judge warned, “If [Plaintiff] does not file an 

amended complaint, the Court may dismiss this action.” 

Plaintiff ignored the magistrate judge’s advice and instead filed the same 

complaint.1

 In response, the district judge dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without 

prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with the magistrate judge’s order. 

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal for failure to 

comply with a court order. Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 

1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). In this action, we find no abuse of discretion because 

(1) Plaintiff blatantly flouted the magistrate judge’s order,2 (2) the order warned 

Plaintiff of dismissal, and (3) the district judge dismissed without prejudice.3

 See

Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 720 F.2d 1495, 1499 (11th Cir. 1983)

(“Although this case does not involve a series of violation of court rules or pretrial 

orders, because the case was dismissed without prejudice, we cannot say that the 

 

1

 In fact, Plaintiff’s amended complaint changed the complaint in only one detectable manner. 

Plaintiff’s 39-page amended complaint added one paragraph to the 38-page original complaint. 

The added paragraph clarifies nothing.

2

 Plaintiff’s narrative reply brief asserts that the magistrate judge gave Plaintiff neither sufficient 

time to amend the complaint nor sufficient guidance on how to amend the complaint. The 

magistrate judge gave Plaintiff two weeks to amend and, as discussed above, included substantial 

guidance on how to amend the complaint. Both suffice, especially because Plaintiff neither 

requested additional time nor attempted to amend the complaint. See also Mala v. Crown Bay 

Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 243 (3d Cir. 2013) (“[P]ro se litigants do not have a right to general 

legal advice from judges.”).

3

 If a dismissal without prejudice has the same effect as a dismissal with prejudice, the district 

court may dismiss for failure to comply with a court order “only in the face of a clear record of 

delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff.” McKelvey v. AT & T Techs., Inc., 789 F.2d 

1518, 1520 (11th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff does not argue that the dismissal in this action is 

equivalent to a dismissal with prejudice.

USCA11 Case: 15-14036 Date Filed: 03/11/2016 Page: 4 of 5
5

district court abused its discretion.”); see also Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 

837 (11th Cir. 1989) (affirming a dismissal with prejudice against a pro se litigant 

and stating that “dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant 

has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion”). Accordingly, we

AFFIRM.

USCA11 Case: 15-14036 Date Filed: 03/11/2016 Page: 5 of 5