FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT NOVEMB ER 9, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1463 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 60 99 8- CV-KAM RICH ARD ST ARK S, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us STATE OF FLORIDA, AG EN CY FO R H EA LT H C ARE AD MIN IST RAT IO N ( AH CA) , ROYAL AMERICAN MANAGEMENT, INC., FLORIDA FISH AND W ILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMI SSION, W ILLIE MEGGS, Sta te of F lo rid a Att orne y , et al ., 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 Southern D istrict of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(N ove m be r 9, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, A N D E RS O N a nd B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Judg es .Be cause Starks makes no argument that the district c ourt err ed in f inding that his c omplaint was 1 frivolous or fa iled to state a claim or both, w e do not re view the suff iciency of his complaint. See Acc ess Now, Inc. v. Southwest A irlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11 Cir. 2004) (issues not raise d th in appellate br ief a

re de emed a

bandoned)
. 2 PE R CU RIA M:
Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant R ic ha rd

S tark s a ppe al s pr o se the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s su a sp on te di sm is sa l o f hi s co m pl ai nt pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) . No
r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r

h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. Starks filed a com

plaint nam ing fourteen defendants -- am ong whom we re the S ta te of

F lor ida , anum

be r of F lor ida a ge nc ie s, thr ee F lor ida

j udge s, the F lor ida A tto rn ey G en er al , ac ity

pol ic e de pa rtm en t, ac ounty j ai l, astate a tto rn ey , apub lic de fe nde r an d alaw f

irm - - an d r ai sin g m an y

c la im s ba se d onS tark s’ s pe rc ep tio n tha t the se e nti tie s and i ndi vid ua ls c onsp ir ed

a ga ins t hi m

to ru in h is l if

e. S tark s
m ove d to pr oc ee d inf

orm a paupe ri s ( “ IF P” ). B ef or e se rv ic e of

pr oc es s, the dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed

the c om pla int
. A cc or din g to the dis tr ic t c ourt, the
co m pla int w as f ri vol ous an d f

ai le d to state ac la im

upo n w hic h r el ie f m ay

be gr an te d. O n a ppe al , S tark s a dvanc es no arg um en t tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in ei the r of it s c onc lus ion s a

bout S tark s’ s c om

pla int
. I nst ea d, S tark

a rg ue s th at

the 1 district court viol ated procedural rules w hen it dism issed the com plaint before a3

sw er s w er e fi le d. A cc or din g to S tark s, the dis tr ic t c ourt a ct ed w ithr ev er sib le ha ste be ca

use his c la im s “ m ay

ha ve be enpr ove n” by

the de fe ndants ’ s answ er s. Inf orm a paupe ri s pr oc ee din gs are gov er ne d by 28 U
. S. C. § 19 15. S ec tio n 1915 (e )( 2) pr ovi de s, in re le va nt p ar t:

.. . the c ourt shall di sm iss the case at any tim e if the c ourt determ ines that --

. . . (B) the action or appeal -- (i ) is f ri vol ous or

m al ic iou s; (i i) f ai ls t o st at e a cl ai m

on whic h r el ie f m ay

be gr an te d; or (i ii) se ek s m one tary

r el ie f ag ai nst

ade fe ndant who is imm une from such relief. 28 U. S. C. § 191 5(e)( 2). St ar ks’ s arg um en t tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt w as obl ige d to a llo w f or the
co m pla int to be a nsw er ed

be fo re dis m iss al ign or es se ct ion191 5( e) (2 )’ s di re ct ion tha t at an y ti me a n a ct ionis de te rm ine d to be f ri vol ous or

to fa il to s ta te ac la im

it is t o be dis m iss ed
. N o r equir em en t a ppl ie s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt w ai t un til
answer s have been filed before m aking a section 19 15(e)(2)( B) deter m ination
. In the li ght of S tark s’ s I FP status , the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed no p ro ce dur al e rr or whe n i t s ua sp on te ass es se d S ta rk s’s p le ad in gs be fo re d efen da nt s wer e se rv ed
.Also without mer it is Starks’s argument that dismiss al bef ore a defe ndant answe rs violates the 2 fede ral rule s of civil proce dure a nd violat es l o ca l rules. No conf lict has bee n shown betwe en the dis mis sa l pr ov isi on s o f s e c tio n 1 91 5( e )( 2) and a pp lic a ble pr oc e dura l r

ule s. Starks claims to ha

ve reque sted that his case be transfe rre d to L eon County befor e imposition 3 of sanc tions or dismi ssal. As the di strict court noted, Starks sty led hi s complaint as “United District C o urtf o r L e o n C o un ty, ” an d

mu c ho f th e c o mp l a i n ta d dr e s s e s e v e n t s th a to c c ur r e d i nL e o nC o un ty. Proper f eder al venue for L eon County would be in the Norther n District of F lorida. B ut Starks filed hi s compla int

in t he Southe rn

Di str ic t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s do c ke t sh e e t r e fl e c ts n o mo tio n to transfe r; and, in any

event, the district c ourt did not dismi ss based on improper venue. 4 Se e Mi tc he ll v. F ar ca ss, 112 F
. 3d 1 483, 148 6 ( 11 Ci r. 199 7) ( re vie w ing se ct ion th 1915 (e)( 2)(B) (ii) sua sponte dism issal before defe ndants s erved w ith com plaint). 2 Starks’ s also advances a claim based on Rule 24(a)(4) of the Fe de ra l R ule s of Appe lla te P ro ce dur e. F ed
. R. App. P. 24( a) (4 ). B ut tha t r ule triggers notice requirem ents onlyin situatio ns where an in form a pauperis appeal is not allo we d to go forw ard. Beca use the district court allowed Star ks’ s IFP ap pe al , Rul e 2 4( a)(4 ) is in ap po si te . AFFIRMED. 3