FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 13, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 61 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :0 4- cv -0 01 05 -MP -AK ROSS J . LAW SON, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee, ALEPH INSTITUTE, INC., Defen da nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 3, 2 01 1) ON PETITION FOR REHEARINGBefo re EDMONDSON, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: App el lantRo ss J. Laws on ’s Mo ti on forReh eari ng is GRANTED . The pa ne l’s o pi ni on of M ay

25 , 20 11 is withd rawnan d the fol lo win g o pi ni on is
subs ti tu te d i n i ts pl ace. Ro ss Lawso n, a F lo rid a p ris on er, fi le d a pr o s e laws ui t ag ai ns t the Secr et ary of th e Fl or id a Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s i n h is off ic ia l capa ci ty (the “ DOC”) fo r in jun ct iv e an d d ecl arat ory

rel ie f un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. Inhi s co m pl ai nt , Lawso n a ll eg edvi ol at io ns of t he Rel ig io us LandUse andIns ti tu ti on al iz edPers on s Act o f 20 00 (“ RLUIPA”), 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 cc-1 , andth e Fl or id a Rel ig io us Free do m Res to rat io n Act(“ RFRA” ), Fla . Sta t. An n. § 76 1.0 1. Fin di ng th at 1 Lawso n’s p ro fes se d b el ie fs inOrth od ox Ju da is m were i ns in cere , th e d is tri ctco urt di sm is se d the act io n a s fr iv ol ou s u nd er the Pri so n Li ti ga ti on Refo rm Act (P LRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) (i) . On ap pe al , Lawso n a rg ue s tha t the di stric t co urt
erro ne ou sl y

di sm is se d h is su itas f

riv ol ou s, i napp ro pr ia te ly reso lv eddi sp ut ed is su es of f

actab ou t Laws on ’s si nc eri ty, an d fa il edto affo rdhi m ad equa te no ti ce

L awson initially

filed his complaint pro se, but paid the full filing f ee w ith his 1 complaint. After

eighteen months of litigation, L awson re tained counse l, who filed an a mended complaint. Counsel later withdre w. L awson proc eeds pro seon appea l. 2an d a n o pp ortu ni ty to p res en t ev id en ce b efo re d is m is si ng th e co m pl ai nt . After a
rev ie w of the reco rd , we rev ers e an d re m an d. I. Lawso n fi le d a n a m en de d c om pl ai ntall eg in g tha t the DOC bu rd en edhi s pr act ic e o f Orth od ox Ju da is m by, in te r a li a , den y in g h im acce ss to Kos he r m eal s, de nyin g a cces s t o d ai ly andweek ly reli gi ou s s erv ic es , andde nyin g h is rig htto ob se rv e Je wis h h ol id ay s. 2 The DOC m ov edto di sm is s the co m pl ai ntas f riv ol ou s b ecau se Lawso n’s rel ig io us be li efs were n otsi nc ere. Itals o re qu es te d d is mis sa l as a sanc ti on ag ai ns t Lawso n fo r fi li ng a fri vo lo us laws ui t. Insupp ort o f th e m ot io n, the DOC
subm it te d re co rd s o f Lawso n’s ca nt eenpu rch as es , sh owi ng th athe pu rch as edno nKos he r fo odit em s, as well as s ev eral affi da vi ts fro m pri so n p ers on ne l s up po rti ng th e DOC’s po si ti on th atLawso n’s b el ie fs were i ns in cere . In o pp os it io n t o the
m ot io n t o d is m is s, Laws on fil eda m ot io n t o s tri ke th e aff id av it s, d is pu te d the
co nt en t o f th e aff

id av it s, an d s ub m it te d a ffi da vi ts of o th er i nm at es to est ab li sh th at he ha d b eende pr iv edof t he op po rtu ni ty to p ract ic e h is rel ig io n. He al so subm it te d gr ie va nc es an d o th er d oc um en ta ti on forth e d is tri ctco urt’s co ns id erat io n.
He a lso requeste d an eme rg ency preliminary

injunction requiringthe DOC to provide 2 Kosher me als and to exempt him from the groomingcode. T he district cour t denied the preliminary

injunction and L awson doe s not appea l from that orde r. 3Altho ug h Laws onpa idhi s i ni ti al fil in g fe e in ful l, the m ag is tra te jud ge

reco m m en de d tha t the co m

pl ai ntbe di sm is se d a s fr iv ol ou s und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 15 19 be cau se th ere was ev id en ce tha t Laws on ’s rel ig io us be li efs were n otsi nc ere a nd th atLawso n b e g iv ena “ st rik e” u nd er § 15 19 (g ). OverLawso n’s o bjec ti on s, an d 3 aft er co ns id eri ng Lawso n’s m ot io n, the di st ric t co urt ad op te d the m ag is tra te jud ge ’s reco m

m en da ti on an d d is m is se d the co m pl ai ntwith p reju di ce. II. On ap pe al , Lawso n fi rs t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n by dis m is si ng th e act io n a s fr iv ol ou s. We revi ew th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f act io n a s fr iv ol ou s u nd er § 19 15 (e)( 2) (B)( i) f orab us e o f di sc ret io n. Mit ch el l v. Bro wn &W

il li ams on To ba cco Co rp . , 29 4 F .3d13 09 , 13 15 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). “ A di st ric t co urt ab us es it s d is cret io n i f itap pl ie s an in co rrec t l eg al st an da rd , fol lo ws im pr op er p ro cedur es inm ak in g the de te rm in at io n, o r m ak es fin di ng s o f fac t tha t
are c le arl y

erro ne ou s.” Ch ic ag o T

ri bu ne Co . v. Bri dg es to ne /Fi rest on e, In c. , 26 3 F.3 d 1 30 4, 1 30 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1)
.

At the time of the mag istrate judg e’s r ecommendation, L awson ha d not filed a re sponse 3 to the motion for sanctions. L awson ha d timely tender ed his response to the prison mail sy stem, but his objections were not docketed in the district c ourt until after the mag istrate judg e’s r eport. In any event, the district c ourt consider ed L awson’s r esponse a nd the evidenc e bef

ore a dopting the mag istrate judg e’s r ecommenda tion. 4Sect io n 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) (i) pro vi de s tha t the di st ric t co urt s ha ll di sm is s the

cas e o f a p ris on er p ro ceed in g in fo rma pa up er is (IFP ) if the act io n i s fr iv ol ou s o r m al ic io us . 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) (i) . A clai m is fri vo lo us if i t “ la ck s an arg uabl e b as is eit he r in law o r in fact .” Mil le r v. Do na ld , 54 1 F .3d10 91 , 11 00 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (qu ot in g Nei tz ke v. Will ia ms , 49 0 U.S. 3 19 , 32 7 (1 98 9) ). On re vi ew, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y di sm is si ng Lawso n’s ac ti on as f riv ol ou s u nd er § 19 15 (e)( 2) (B)( i). Th is co urt h as he ldth at“ § 1 91 5( e) on ly ap pl ie s t o c as es inwhi chth e p la in ti ff i s p ro ceed in g [ in fo rma pa up er is ]. ” Far es e v. S ch er er , 34 2 F .3d12 23 , 12 28 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (em ph as is ad de d) . Add it io na ll y , th e Supr em e Co urt h as cla rif ie d tha t co urts on ly
rev ie w forfri vo li ty und er § 19 15 when th e p la in ti ff fai ls to pay th e in it ia l fi li ng fee; th is is no t the cas e h ere. Se e Nei tz ke v. Will ia ms , 49 0 U.S. 3 19 , 32 5- 26 (1 98 9)
. Lawso n d idno t ci te to ou r ci rcu itpre ced en t re ga rd in g § 19 15 inhi s i ni ti al br ie f on ap pe al , no r di d h e sp eci fic al ly argu e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredfor di sm is si ng hi s cl ai m

as f riv ol ou s u nd er the IFP s ta tu te . Ordi na ril y when an ap pe ll an t fa il s t o m ak e anex pl ic itarg um en t i n h is in it ia l b rie f, we co ns id er i t waiv ed
. Nat ’l As s’ n o

f Bd s. o f Ph armac

y v. Bd. o f Reg en ts of

th e Uni v. Sys. o

f Geo rg ia , 63 3 F .3d12 97 , 13 09 n. 2 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) . Here, ho wev er, Laws on di d 5no te insev eral pl aces be fo re the di st ric t co urt an d the co urt o f ap pe al s tha t h e p ai d

th e in it ia l fi li ng fee i n fu ll . Andbri efs fil edby pr o s e li ti ga nt s ar e to be read li be ral ly. Uni te d Sta tes v. Hu ng Th ie n L y , 64 6 F .3d13 07 , 13 16 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Bec au se Lawso n p ai d the fil in g fe e in ful l atth e ti m e h e fi le d h is in it ia l co m pl ai nt , he was n ev er s ub

ject t o the st atut e g ov ern in g the fil in gs of I FP l it ig an ts . Thu s, the di st ric t co urt erredwhen itdi sm is se d h is co m pl ai ntforfri vo li ty pur su an t t o tha t st atut e. The o rd er o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s REVERSED an d REMANDED
.

6