FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT DEC 12, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN T HE U

NITED STA TES C OURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- N o. 06- 1257 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 38 9- CV-4 -MM P-AK R. CASPER ADAMS ON, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us JAM ES MCDONOUGH, Se cr et ar y , D ep ar tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns, R. E. BARRY, S. BRUNT, OL ES TE R D ICKEN S, JACKIE AD AMS , U N K N O W N MA IL RO O M O FF IC E R 2 , U N K N O W N MA IL RO O M O FF IC E R 1 , Defen da nt s- App el le es .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt for the N orthern District of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - (D ec em be r 12, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BL A CK and M A RC U S, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s.Although it a ppear s that the Secre tary has been serve d with pr ocess in this case , the re cord doe s 1 no t r e ve a l whe the r t

he oth e r D e fe nd ants we re pr op e rl y se rv e d p ro c e ss. 2 PE R CU RIA M: Plaintiff-Appellant R. Ca sper Adam son, a Florida prisoner procee ding pro
se , appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al pur suant t o F ed
. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) (6 ) of his 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83 c om

pla int a ga ins t the S ec re tary

of the F lor ida

D ep ar tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns ( the “ Se cr et ar y ”) , gr ie vanc e of

fi ce rs w iththe F lor ida

D ep ar tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns, and p ri son of fi ci al s ( co lle ct ive ly

the “ D ef en dants ”)
. R ev er sib le e rr or

1 ha s be ensho w n; w e va cate and r em an d f or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs. In his com

plaint, Adam son -- who asserte d that he is “ a converted Southern Ba pti st” - - al le ge d th at

pr iso n of fi ci al s r ef use d to m ai l thirte enle tte rs that he atte m pte d to se nd t o B ap tis t c hur ch es and m ini ste rs to re que st “pr ay er partne rs and
re lig iou s pe n pa ls. ” H e co nte nde d th at D ef en dants vio la te d hi s F ir st A m en dm en t ri ght to fr ee dom

of r el igi on and f

re ed om of spe ec h by

e nf or ci ng a pr ovi sio n of

the Florida Adm inistrative Code -- which prohib its the use of “ correspondence pr ivi le ge s to sol ic it or

oth er w ise c om m er ci al ly a dve rt ise f

or m one y , goo ds o r services” and “ includes adv ertising for pen pals,” see Fla. Adm in. Code A nn. r. 33-210 .101(9) (the “ Rule”) - - in ref using to m ail his letters requesting pray erAdamson’s c omplaint also alleg ed that De fenda nts’ ref usal to mail his prayer- par t n erletters 2 infring ed on his “right to marry , by preve nting him from lookingfor a g irlfriend and fia

ncée ” and that Def endants violated the Constitution in rejecting50 pen pal addre sses that he purc hased f rom “Soulmates.” B ut Adamson does not ra ise these c laims on appea l; they are abandone d. See Hor sley v. Fe ldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 n.1 (11th Cir. 2002) (explaining that pro se appellant a bandons issue not argued in initial brief). 3 partne rs . I n a ddi tio n, A dam son al le ge d th at the Ru le w as e na ct ed

w ith out 2
s t a tu t o ry au th o r i ty. O n a ppe al , A dam son ch al le nge s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to dis m iss his
co m pla int a ft er c onc lud ing that the int er ce pti on o f A dam son’ s ou tgo ing m ai l pur suant t o th e Ru le w as c onst itu tio na l. R el y ing on the S upr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n in P ro cunie r v. Mart ine z, 94 S
. Ct
. 180 0, 181 1 ( 1974 ), the dis tr ic t c ourt f ir st considered whether the R ule furthered an “ an im

portant or sub stantial governm ental interest unrelated to the supp ression of expression .” A fter ide nti fy ing the und er ly ing gov er nm en ta l i nte re st a s “ se curi ty and the pr ev en tio n of inm ate fr aud and harassm ent of the unwitting pu blic that has resulted in m oney
or de r sc am s and o the r cr im ina l a ct ivi tie s, ” the dis tr ic t c ourt e xpl ai ne d th at the Rule did not restrict A dam son’s Fir st Am endm ent free dom s m ore than necessary to protect the gov ernm ental interest. The district court there fore c onclud ed that ap pl ic at io n o f th e Ru le in th is cas e d idno t v io la te Adam so n’s fr eed om of s pe ech
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso dis m iss ed A dam son’ s c la im

that e nf or ce m en t of

the Ru le vio la te d hi s f

re e ex er ci se of

r el igi on b ec au se A dam son ha d no t sh ow n aIn addition, we libera lly construe pr o se plea dings. See Tanne nbaum v. United States, 148 F .3d 3 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). 4 fundam en ta l i nte re st “ to b e pr ote ct ed or w ei ghe d a ga ins t the se curi ty c onc er ns o f th e p ris on .” W e re vie wde nov o adis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al f or f ai lur e to s ta te ac la im pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Magluta v. S am ples, 375 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2004 ). “ U nde r [F ed
. R. Ci v. P. ] 12( b) (6 ), w he the r a pla int if f fa ile d to state ac la im uponw hic h r el ie f can be gr an te d m ust be a sc er ta ine d f ro m the f ac e of the
co m pla int
. ” G ar ci a v. Co pe nhave r, Be ll & A sso cs . , 104 F
. 3d 1 256, 126 6 n. 11 (1 1thCi r. 199 7)
. Ac om

pla int sho uld not be dis m iss ed

pur suant t o R

ule 12( b) (6 )

“ unl es s it appe ar s be y ond doub t tha t the pla int if f can pr ove no s et

of f ac ts i n supp ort of his claim .” Bec k v. D eloitte & Touche, 144 F.3d 732, 735 (11t h Cir. 1998 ) (internal quotation om itted). And “ [w ] e acc ept the facts of the c om plaint as true and view them

in the ligh t m ost favorable to the non m ovin g party .” Magluta, 3 375 F. 3d at 12 73. H er e, the r ec or d do es not sho wthat - - at

the e ar ly sta ge of thi s li tig at ion be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt - - the part ie s of fe re d arg um en t or

c ite d auth or ity

on the gove rn m en ta l i nte re st b eh ind the Ru le or

the se curi ty

c onc er ns p ro te ct ed

by ap p l i ca t i o no f t h e Ru l e. In d ee dth e S ec re t ary’ s m o t i o nt o d i s m i s s Ad amso n ’sWe briefly addre ss Adamson’s re maining a rguments. We are unpe rsuade d by his assertion that 4 he has state d a cla im that the Rule is an invalid e x erc ise of leg islative authority
. As the district court discussed, the F lorida De partment of Corr ections has statut o ry au thority pursuant to Fl. Stat. § 94 4. 09 (1 )( g ) to ad op t rul e s abo ut “[m]a il to and fr om the state c or re c tio na l sy ste m.” In ad dit ion , to the extent that Adamson raises -- for the first time -- arguments about t he R elig ious L and Use and Institut ionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et se q., we do not addr ess these cl aims. See Walker v. J ones, 10 F.3d 1569, 1572 (11th Cir. 1994) (“[W ]e have repe atedly held that an issue not ra ise d in the dis tr ic t c ourt

and ra ise d f

or the fi rs t ti me in a

n a pp e a l w ill no t be c on sid e re d b y thi s court.” ) (inter

nal quotation omitted). And we see no reve rsible error in the district court’s de cision to construe Ada

mson’s motion for summary judgme nt -- which w as filed while the district court wa s consideri n g

th e Se c r e tary ’s motion to dis miss Adamson’s complaint and to which Ada mson attache d no aff idavits, testimony , or other e x hibits -- as a supplemental response by Adamson to the dismiss al motion. S ee Am. Post al Wo rk er s Uni on v. U.S. Post al Serv., 823 F .2d 466, 478 (11th Cir. 1987) (explaining that “ Appellee filed no af fidavits or testimony

in support of its purported summar y judgme nt motion” and that “[m] ere ly applying the label ‘mot i o n fo r s u mmary judgme nt’ to a pleadingdoes not make it one” ). 5 com plaint prov ides no exp lanation of the reason for the Rule. But the district court, r ely ing on authorities from j urisdictio ns oth er than Florida, dism issed Adam son’s com

plaint after identify ing what it perceived to be the governm ental interest served by

the Rule. Although th e district court’ s ultim ate conclusion m ay pr ove c or re ct , it s ana ly sis - - w hic h pr oc ee de d w ith out the be ne fi t of

dis cu ssi on o f the Rule’ s purpos e by

the parties or authority

explaining the Rule in Florida -- ap pe ar s to be pr em at

ur e in the c ont ex t of

aRu le 12( b) (6 ) m oti on. F or that r ea son,
w e cannot

say that A dam son can pr ove no s et of f ac ts i n su ppor t of his F ir st Am endm ent claim s. S ee Be ck, 144 F. 3d at 735
. Ther efore, we vacate the district court’ s order dism issin g Adam son’s com plaint and rem and for further pr oc ee din gs. 4 VACATED AN D REMANDED.