UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING

56 Forsyth Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

David J. Smith

Clerk of Court 

December 07, 2023

For rules and forms visit

www.ca11.uscourts.gov

Clerk - Southern District of Florida

U.S. District Court 

400 N MIAMI AVE

MIAMI, FL 33128-1810

Appeal Number: 23-10896-A

Case Style: Junior Galette v. Roger Goodell, et al

District Court Docket No: 0:22-cv-61565-BB

A copy of this letter, and the judgment form if noted above, but not a copy of the court's 

decision, is also being forwarded to counsel and pro se parties. A copy of the court's decision 

was previously forwarded to counsel and pro se parties on the date it was issued.

The enclosed copy of the judgment is hereby issued as mandate of the court. The court's opinion 

was previously provided on the date of issuance.

Clerk's Office Phone Numbers

General Information: 404-335-6100 Attorney Admissions: 404-335-6122

Case Administration: 404-335-6135 Capital Cases: 404-335-6200

CM/ECF Help Desk: 404-335-6125 Cases Set for Oral Argument: 404-335-6141

Enclosure(s) 

MDT-1 Letter Issuing Mandate

USCA11 Case: 23-10896 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 1 of 1

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2023 Page 1 of 15
In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-10896

____________________

JUNIOR GALETTE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROGER GOODELL, 

SEATTLE SEAHAWKS, 

LOS ANGELES RAMS, 

LAS VEGAS RAIDERS, 

CLEVELAND BROWNS FOOTBALL COMPANY, LLC, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:22-cv-61565-BB

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-10896 Document: 26-2 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 1 of 2

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2023 Page 2 of 15
2 23-10896

JUDGMENT

It is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the opinion issued on this date in this appeal is entered as the judgment of this 

Court.

Entered: November 8, 2023

For the Court: DAVID J. SMITH, Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS MANDATE: December 7, 2023

USCA11 Case: 23-10896 Document: 26-2 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 2 of 2

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2023 Page 3 of 15
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-10896

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

JUNIOR GALETTE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROGER GOODELL, 

SEATTLE SEAHAWKS, 

LOS ANGELES RAMS, 

LAS VEGAS RAIDERS, 

CLEVELAND BROWNS FOOTBALL COMPANY, LLC, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-10896 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/08/2023 Page: 1 of 10

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2023 Page 4 of 15
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10896

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:22-cv-61565-BB

____________________

Before NEWSOM, ANDERSON and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Junior Galette, a former professional football player, appeals 

the district court’s dismissal of his pro se second amended complaint 

against seven constituent teams of the National Football League 

(“NFL”), the NFL’s Commissioner Roger Goodell, and the NFL 

Players Association (“NFLPA”). The district court dismissed 

Galette’s second amended complaint with prejudice because, 

despite being given an opportunity to fix pleading deficiencies, 

Galette still failed to allege facts sufficient to plausibly state a claim. 

After review, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND FACTS

A. Original Complaint

In August 2022, Galette, proceeding pro se, filed his original 

complaint. In addition to the NFLPA and Goodell, Galette named 

as defendants: (1) the Seattle Seahawks, (2) the Los Angeles Rams, 

(3) the Las Vegas Raiders, (4) the Cleveland Browns, (5) the Kansas 

City Chiefs, (6) the Carolina Panthers, and (7) the Washington 

Football Team (formerly known as the Redskins and now known 

as the Commanders). We refer to the Washington Football Team 

as the Washington Redskins given that was its name at the time of 

the relevant events. 

USCA11 Case: 23-10896 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/08/2023 Page: 2 of 10

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2023 Page 5 of 15
23-10896 Opinion of the Court 3

We recount the factual allegations. Galette’s original 

complaint alleged that in March 2018, the Buffalo Bills signed his 

former white teammate on the Washington Redskins, Trent 

Murphy, to a three-year deal worth up to $30 million. Murphy

“played behind” Galette in the same position but had not played in 

2017 due to an injury. Meanwhile, the Redskins offered Galette, 

who is African American, a two-year, $4 million contract, even 

though Galette was healthy and coming off a strong 2017 season. 

Shortly after Galette complained about the Redskins’s offer on 

social media, calling it a “slave deal,” the Redskins withdrew the 

offer without explanation. 

Over the next few months, Galette spoke to, met with, and 

worked out for other NFL teams, including the teams named as 

defendants. However, the only offers Galette received were for 

“veteran’s minimum” contracts of $660,000. Hoping for 

something better, Galette did not take the first such offer made by 

the Oakland Raiders. Later, Galette decided to accept a similar 

offer from the Los Angeles Rams. But when he flew to Los Angeles 

to practice with the team, Galette was told there had “been a 

change of plans,” and he was taken back to the airport. Unable to 

play in the NFL, Galette believed that he was blacklisted by the 

NFL owners, “just like Colin Kaepernick,” in retaliation for 

complaining about the Washington Redskins’s racially

discriminatory offer. 

Galette’s pro se complaint alleged that all of the defendants: 

(1) discriminated against him based on his race, in violation of 42 

U.S.C. § 1981 (Count I); (2) violated his free speech rights under the 

U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of Florida and Virginia 

(Count II); and (3) conspired to breach the anti-discrimination 

USCA11 Case: 23-10896 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/08/2023 Page: 3 of 10

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2023 Page 6 of 15
4 Opinion of the Court 23-10896

provision in the NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining agreement 

(“CBA”) (Count III).1 

B. Dismissal of Original and First Amended Complaints

The defendants moved to dismiss Galette’s original 

complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6)

and attached excerpts from the 2011 and 2020 CBA. The district 

court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions. 

The district court dismissed Count III with prejudice 

because Galette’s CBA claim was subject to the CBA’s mandatory 

arbitration clause. As to Counts I and II, the district court identified 

numerous pleading deficiencies but determined they were not 

insurmountable. Therefore, the district court dismissed Counts I 

and II with leave for Galette to file an amended complaint that 

cured those deficiencies and that omitted Count III. The district 

court warned Galette that failure to comply with its order would 

result in sua sponte dismissal. 

Galette filed an amended complaint that, despite the district 

court’s instructions, included allegations as to Count III. The 

district court sua sponte dismissed Galette’s amended complaint 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply

with its prior order. The district court granted Galette leave to file 

a second amended complaint that complied with its prior order. 

1 Count I of Galette’s complaint alleged the defendants violated §§ 1 and 2 of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The district court found that the “essence of 

Count I” was that Galette’s former, white teammate was offered a better 

contract even though Galette was an equal or better player. The district court 

therefore liberally construed Count I as alleging a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981

because it is where the relevant portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1866—

prohibiting race discrimination in contracts—is now codified. 

USCA11 Case: 23-10896 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/08/2023 Page: 4 of 10

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2023 Page 7 of 15
23-10896 Opinion of the Court 5

C. Dismissal of Second Amended Complaint

Galette then filed his second amended complaint, which was 

far from a model of clarity. Rather than replead the facts and 

counts, Galette merely set out his “response and amendment to” 

Counts I and II and referred back to his original complaint several 

times. Galette also alleged as to Count I that the defendant NFLPA 

was aware of NFL owners’ and general managers’ acts of 

discrimination and retaliation and had a contractual obligation to 

defend his rights, but failed to do so. 

The defendants again moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), 

arguing that Galette did not cure the pleading deficiencies 

identified by the district court and still failed to state a plausible 

claim. The NFLPA also argued that to the extent Galette sought 

to assert a new claim that it breached the duty of fair 

representation, the second amended complaint’s allegations were 

wholly conclusory, and the claim was untimely. 

The district court granted the defendants’ motions and 

dismissed Galette’s second amended complaint with prejudice. 

After discussing the pleading standards of Rules 8(a)(2) and 

12(b)(6), the district court concluded as to Count I that Galette 

“failed to cure any of the five deficiencies that this Court previously 

noted regarding Count I of Galette’s original Complaint.” The 

district court found the second amended complaint’s allegations of 

race discrimination “even more conclusory than those within the

original Complaint.” The district court stressed that the second 

amended complaint alleged that all defendants were liable for 

discrimination based on the Washington Redskins’s less lucrative 

offer than the offer given to an inferior white teammate by a team 

(the Buffalo Bills) that was not a defendant. The district court 

concluded that these allegations, even if true, failed to state a claim 

USCA11 Case: 23-10896 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/08/2023 Page: 5 of 10

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2023 Page 8 of 15
6 Opinion of the Court 23-10896

“because, among other reasons previously discussed, they fail to 

specify a discriminatory act taken by a Defendant.” 

As to Galette’s free speech claim in Count II, the district 

court again concluded the second amended complaint “failed to 

cure the primary deficiency” identified in the original complaint, 

namely it lacked “a credible allegation of state action.” Because 

Galette was given specific instructions about these pleading 

deficiencies and yet was unable to cure them, the district court 

determined “that further amendment would be futile.” This 

appeal followed. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. General Principles

Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to “contain . . . a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Under Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant may 

move to dismiss a complaint if it “fail[s] to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a Rule 

12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain sufficient facts, accepted 

as true, to state a facially plausible claim for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

678 (2009). A claim is facially plausible if it “pleads factual content 

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678; see also Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 707 n.2 (11th Cir. 2010)

(stating that under the Twombly-Iqbal plausibility standard, the 

complaint must “contain either direct or inferential allegations 

respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery 

under some viable legal theory”). 

USCA11 Case: 23-10896 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/08/2023 Page: 6 of 10

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2023 Page 9 of 15
23-10896 Opinion of the Court 7

“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his 

entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and 

a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 

do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up). A complaint’s factual 

allegations must be sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.” Id. Although pro se pleadings are liberally 

construed and held to less stringent standards than those drafted by 

attorneys, they still must suggest some factual basis for a claim. 

Jones v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 787 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 2015).2

An appellant, even a pro se appellant, who fails to brief 

adequately an issue by “plainly and prominently” raising it in his 

opening brief, abandons that claim. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridan 

Ins., Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014); Timson v. Sampson, 518 

F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008); Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 

F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). Although we liberally construe a 

pro se litigant’s pleadings, we still require conformity with 

procedural rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 

2007). Liberal construction of pro se pleadings “does not give a 

court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an 

otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” 

Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir. 2014) 

(quotation marks omitted). 

B. Galette’s Preserved Claims on Appeal

On appeal, Galette’s pro se opening brief primarily attacks 

the district court’s dismissal order on grounds that wholly lack 

2 We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to 

state a claim. Chua v. Ekonomou, 1 F.4th 948, 952 (11th Cir. 2021). In reviewing 

the dismissal, “[w]e accept the allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Id.

USCA11 Case: 23-10896 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/08/2023 Page: 7 of 10

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2023 Page 10 of 15
8 Opinion of the Court 23-10896

merit and warrant little discussion. The grounds include that: 

(1) the defendants’ motions to dismiss constituted inadmissible 

hearsay and violated the prohibition against an attorney acting as a 

witness because they were prepared by the defendants’ attorneys; 

(2) the defendants’ motions to dismiss failed to rebut or dispute his 

complaint with admissible evidence, such as depositions or 

affidavits; (3) the district court’s dismissal order violated his 

constitutional right to a jury trial; and (4) the district court violated 

his due process rights by not being impartial. 

Many of these arguments misunderstand the role of the 

Rule 12(b)(6) motion in federal civil litigation. At the motion-todismiss stage, the district court does not evaluate any evidence or 

determine whether there is a factual dispute between the parties 

that a jury must decide. Instead, both the defendant moving to 

dismiss and the district court accept the plaintiff’s factual 

allegations in the complaint as true, and the district court merely 

determines whether those allegations are sufficient to state a claim 

for relief. 

Thus, the statements in a defendant’s motion to dismiss do 

not constitute evidence, much less hearsay evidence, and the 

attorney drafting the motion is not acting as a witness. Moreover, 

a district court’s proper dismissal of a complaint under Rule 

12(b)(6) does not violate a plaintiff’s constitutional right to a jury 

trial. See Jefferson v. Sewon Am., Inc., 891 F.3d 911, 919-20 (11th Cir. 

2018) (holding that a grant of summary judgment under Rule 56 

does not violate the Seventh Amendment even though it prevents 

the parties from having a jury rule upon the facts); Garvie v. City of 

Fort Walton Beach, 366 F.3d 1186, 1190 (11th Cir. 2004) (explaining 

that a plaintiff had no right to a jury trial when no factual dispute 

existed for a jury to resolve).

USCA11 Case: 23-10896 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/08/2023 Page: 8 of 10

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2023 Page 11 of 15
23-10896 Opinion of the Court 9

As to Galette’s bald assertion that the district court was not 

impartial and was a “co-opted judge,” a district court’s adverse 

rulings alone are insufficient to demonstrate the court’s partiality 

absent a showing of pervasive bias. Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 

1239 (11th Cir. 2000). Galette does not point to anything in the 

record demonstrating bias, let alone pervasive bias, on the part of 

the district court.

Liberally construed, Galette’s opening brief also argues that 

the district court erred in dismissing his “duty to defend” claim 

against the NFLPA. Galette argues that the NFLPA had “a contractual obligation and duty to defend [his] rights . . . and failed to do 

so.” 

The district court did not err in dismissing this claim. Mixed 

in with his racial discrimination claim in Count I, Galette’s second 

amended complaint states in passing that the NFLPA was aware of 

the NFL defendants’ actions and failed to defend his rights. This 

threadbare allegation does not provide fair notice to the NFLPA 

under Rule 8(a)(2) of a separate claim for breach of the duty of fair 

representation under the National Labor Relations Act. See

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

C. Galette’s Abandoned Claims

Importantly, Galette’s opening brief does not challenge the 

district court’s rulings that his second amended complaint failed to 

allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim of racial 

discrimination under § 1981 or for the violation of his free speech 

rights under either federal or state law. Indeed, apart from 

conclusory references to the violation of his rights under the U.S. 

Constitution, the constitutions of all fifty states, and the Civil 

USCA11 Case: 23-10896 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/08/2023 Page: 9 of 10

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2023 Page 12 of 15
10 Opinion of the Court 23-10896

Rights Act of 1866, Galette’s brief fails to raise any argument on 

appeal expressly challenging the merits of the district court’s 

dismissal order. 

Even construing Galette’s brief liberally, as we do with pro se

litigants, these conclusory statements, without more, do not 

plainly and prominently raise any issue as to the district court’s 

dismissal of Counts I and II. At best, they are “passing references,”

raising claims in a “perfunctory manner without supporting 

arguments and authority.” See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681-82. 

Accordingly, Galette has abandoned any issue as to the district 

court’s dismissal of Counts I and II for failure to plausibly state a 

claim. See id. at 681.

Galette’s brief makes no mention at all of the district court’s

dismissal of Count III in his original complaint. Therefore, he also 

abandoned any challenge to that ruling. 

III. CONCLUSION

For all these reasons, Galette has shown no reversible error 

in the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of his second amended 

complaint for failure to state a claim. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-10896 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/08/2023 Page: 10 of 10

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2023 Page 13 of 15
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING

56 Forsyth Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

David J. Smith

Clerk of Court 

November 08, 2023

For rules and forms visit

www.ca11.uscourts.gov

MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES

Appeal Number: 23-10896-A

Case Style: Junior Galette v. Roger Goodell, et al

District Court Docket No: 0:22-cv-61565-BB

Electronic Filing

All counsel must file documents electronically using the Electronic Case Files ("ECF") system, 

unless exempted for good cause. Although not required, non-incarcerated pro se parties are 

permitted to use the ECF system by registering for an account at www.pacer.gov. Information 

and training materials related to electronic filing are available on the Court's website.

Enclosed is a copy of the court's decision filed today in this appeal. Judgment has this day been 

entered pursuant to FRAP 36. The court's mandate will issue at a later date in accordance with 

FRAP 41(b).

The time for filing a petition for rehearing is governed by 11th Cir. R. 40-3, and the time for 

filing a petition for rehearing en banc is governed by 11th Cir. R. 35-2. Except as otherwise 

provided by FRAP 25(a) for inmate filings, a petition for rehearing or for rehearing en banc is 

timely only if received in the clerk's office within the time specified in the rules. Costs are 

governed by FRAP 39 and 11th Cir.R. 39-1. The timing, format, and content of a motion for 

attorney's fees and an objection thereto is governed by 11th Cir. R. 39-2 and 39-3.

Please note that a petition for rehearing en banc must include in the Certificate of Interested 

Persons a complete list of all persons and entities listed on all certificates previously filed by 

any party in the appeal. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-1. In addition, a copy of the opinion sought to be 

reheard must be included in any petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See

11th Cir. R. 35-5(k) and 40-1 .

Counsel appointed under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) must submit a voucher claiming 

compensation for time spent on the appeal no later than 60 days after either issuance of mandate 

or filing with the U.S. Supreme Court of a petition for writ of certiorari (whichever is later) via 

the eVoucher system. Please contact the CJA Team at (404) 335-6167 or 

cja_evoucher@ca11.uscourts.gov for questions regarding CJA vouchers or the eVoucher 

system.

USCA11 Case: 23-10896 Document: 24-2 Date Filed: 11/08/2023 Page: 1 of 2

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2023 Page 14 of 15
Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, each party to bear own costs.

Please use the most recent version of the Bill of Costs form available on the court's website at 

www.ca11.uscourts.gov.

Clerk's Office Phone Numbers

General Information: 404-335-6100 Attorney Admissions: 404-335-6122

Case Administration: 404-335-6135 Capital Cases: 404-335-6200

CM/ECF Help Desk: 404-335-6125 Cases Set for Oral Argument: 404-335-6141

OPIN-1A Issuance of Opinion With Costs

USCA11 Case: 23-10896 Document: 24-2 Date Filed: 11/08/2023 Page: 2 of 2

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2023 Page 15 of 15