[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-15271

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cv-00322-WS-CAS

J. G. BERNARD, JR., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES ROSENBERG, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(August 14, 2018)

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-15271 Date Filed: 08/14/2018 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Mr. Bernard, acting pro se, appears to appeal the district court’s dismissal of 

his case.1 He attempted to obtain a writ of mandamus from the district court 

against the former head of the DEA, Charles Rosenberg. He alleged a “massive 

theft of pharmaceuticals” that occurred in “jails, prisons, state hospitals and 

military bases,” leading to some sort of “very deadly public health crisis.”

In his first order, the magistrate judge found that the initial filing was 

unsigned and thus was in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). He also found that it 

violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)’s requirement of a “short and plain statement of the 

grounds for the court's jurisdiction,” and that it failed to establish that venue was 

proper. The magistrate judge provided Bernard with a civil complaint form, 

explained the deficiencies, and gave him approximately three weeks in which to 

file a new pleading. 

Instead of complying, Bernard filed a “motion to expedite the proceeding,” a 

“motion for an evidentiary hearing,” a “motion for extension of time to supplement 

his petition,” and “supplemental pleadings of his original petition.” The magistrate 

judge found that Bernard had not complied with the first order and that he had still 

not shown venue. The magistrate judge also ordered that another civil complaint 

form be mailed to Bernard. 

 1 His appellate filing is simultaneously titled a “brief,” a “petition for hearing enbanc [sic] cause 

of action,” and a “brief memorandum of legal authorities in support of petition for hearing 

enbanc [sic].” 

Case: 17-15271 Date Filed: 08/14/2018 Page: 2 of 4 
3

Again flaunting the magistrate judge’s order, Bernard did not make the 

ordered corrections or fill out the form. Instead, he filed a “motion to supplement, 

amend, change and expedite the proceeding.” The magistrate judge issued a report 

and recommendation, advising that the case should be dismissed. Bernard still had

not filed an appropriate pleading, his allegations were “conclusory and 

unsupported by any specific facts,” he had failed to show standing and venue, and 

he had refused to follow the court’s orders. The district court adopted the report 

and recommendation in full and dismissed the case. Bernard appealed. We affirm.

First, to whatever extent Bernard asks this court to grant a writ of 

mandamus, we deny his request. 

Second, the district court did not err in dismissing the case. We review for 

an abuse of discretion. State Exch. Bank v. Hartline, 693 F.2d 1350, 1352 (11th 

Cir. 1982). “While dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard 

of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an 

abuse of discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). 

However, the court must typically find that the party acted willfully and that a 

lesser sanction would not suffice to correct the inappropriate conduct. Zocaras v. 

Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006). Although we give leniency to pro se 

litigants, we do not have “license to serve as de facto counsel for a party or to 

rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” GJR Invs., 

Case: 17-15271 Date Filed: 08/14/2018 Page: 3 of 4 
4

Inc. v. Cty. of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (citations 

omitted). 

Here, the district court gave Bernard two chances to replead, wrote him 

instructions on how to properly do so, and provided him with two copies of the 

proper form. He refused to comply with the court order. The record sufficiently 

supports a finding that Bernard acted willfully and that a lesser sanction would not 

suffice, especially in light of the fact that Bernard did not comply after two 

repleader orders. Cf., e.g., Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985) 

(affirming Rule 41(b) dismissal when counsel, inter alia, failed to submit a 

preliminary statement despite the court’s “repeated insistence” that he do so). 

Additionally, the magistrate judge warned him twice that failure to comply with 

the order would result in dismissal. This further militates against an abuse of 

discretion. Newsome, 863 F.2d at 837.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-15271 Date Filed: 08/14/2018 Page: 4 of 4