FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 5, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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 20 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 8- cv -0 02 91 -SPM -AK CLARENCE L. DUNSON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff

- App el la nt , ve rs us MCKINNEY, Sarg en t, MCKINNEY, Cap ta in , R. DAFFIN, Lieu te nant , SHERYL CONRAD, Staf f Ass is ta nt , BUDDY KENT , Ass is ta ntW ard en , et al ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 5, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Cl aren ce L. Dun so n, a F lo rid a in m at e p ro ceed in g pr o s e an d in fo rma pa up er is , fil edcla im s u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 ag ai ns t s ix pri so n o ffi ci al s. Th e di st ric t co urt d is m is se d h is co m pl ai nt , fin di ng itto be fri vo lo us an d d et erm in in g th atDun so n fa il edto st at e a cl ai m up on whi chrel ie f can be gra nt ed . Dun so n ap pe al s the di sm is sa l. He d oe s n otpre se ntan y ex pr es s ar gu m en ts be fo re thi s Co urt an d h as fil edon ly a seri es of d oc um en ts onap pe al , whi chin cl ud e a ha nd writ te n l et te r reque st in g a ss is ta nc e to fil e th is cas e, do cum en ts rel at edto a pr ev io us ap pe al , a tra ns cri ptof a20 06 he ari ng , hi s thi rdam en de d c om pl ai ntinth is cas e, an d h is no ti ce o f ap pe al . For t he reas on s s etforth be lo w, we affi rm th e di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s co m pl ai nt . DISCUSS ION W e m us t d is mis s a c om

pl ai ntfil edby a pla in ti ff p ro ceed in g in fo rma pa up er is if we de te rm in e th atth e act io n i s (1 ) fri vo lo us or m al ic io us , (2) fai ls to st at e a cl ai m

up onwhi chrel ie f m ay

be gra nt ed , or (3 ) se ek s m on et ary rel ie f ag ai ns t a d efen da ntim

m un e fro m su chrel ie f. Se e 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5( e)(2 ). A cla im is “ fri vo lo us ” if

it“ la ck s an arg uabl e b as is eit he r in law o r in fact .” Nei tz ke v. Will ia ms , 49 0 U.S. 3 19 , 32 5, 1 09 S. Ct. 1 82 7, 1 83 1– 32 (19 89 ). A

2co m

pl ai ntm ay

be di sm is se d fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m if i t d oe s n otpl ead“ en ou gh fact s t o s ta te a cl ai m

to rel ie f th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face .” Bell Atl . Cor p. v. Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. 5 44 , 54 7, 1 27 S. Ct. 1 95 5 (2 00 7) ; id
. at 5 55 , 19 65 (no ti ng th at

“ factua l al le ga ti on s m

us t b e en ou gh to rai se a ri gh t t o re li ef ab ov e th e sp ecu la ti ve le ve l” ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) ; Sp ea ker v. U.S. Dep ’t o

f Hea lth & Huma n Servs . Ctr s. fo r Dise as e Co ntro l a nd

Prev en ti on , 62 3 F .3d13 71 , 13 80 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (fi nd in g t ha t af

te r Ash cr of

t v. Iq ba l , 12 9 S . Ct. 1 93 7, 1 94 9 (2 00 9) , th e p la in ti ff m us t p le adfact s tha t p erm itto th e co urt t o draw a “ reas on ab le in fere nc e” o f th e de fen da nt s’ li ab il it y ). W e in te rp retapr o s e pl ai nt iff’s com pl ai ntles s s tri ng en tl y th ana pl ead in g draft edby an at to rn ey . Se e Ta nn en ba um v. Un it ed Stat es , 14 8 F.3 d 1 26 2, 1 26 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) (pe r cu ria m). Howev er, o ur du ty to co ns tru e a pl ai nt iff’s com

pl ai ntli be ral ly is n otequi va le ntto a du ty to re writ e it . Se e Pete rs on v. Atlan ta Hou s. Au th
. , 99 8 F .2d90 4, 9 12 (11 thCir . 19 93 ).

“ A leg al cla im

or a rg um en t tha t h as no t b eenbri efedbe fo re the co urt i s de em edab an do ne d a ndit s m eri ts wil l n otbe ad dr es se d.” Acces s N ow, Inc . v. So uthw es t Ai rl in es Co . , 38 5 F .3d13 24 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). In a dd it io n, li ti ga nt s m ay

no t i nc or po rat e b y refe ren ce ar gu m en ts fro m pl ead in gs be lo w. Se e Fou r S ea so ns Hot el

s a nd Reso rt s, B.V. v. Con so rc io Barr S.A. , 37 7 F .3d11 64 , 11 67 n.4 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). 3Here, the di st ric t co urt d is m is se d Du ns on ’s cla im pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) (ii ) be cau se itfou ndth atDun so n fa il edto st at e a cl ai m up on whi chrel ie f m ay

be gra nt ed . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l u nd er

1 § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) (ii ) de no vo , acce pt in g a ny all eg at io ns inth e co m pl ai ntas t ru e. Se e Dou gl as v. Y

at es , 53 5 F .3d13 16 , 13 19 –2 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . As an in it ia l m at te r, Dun so n h as ab an do ne d a ll is su es on ap pe al by fail in g t o ad equa te ly brie f th em ; af firm an ce i s ap pr op ria te on th atba si s al on e. Se e Acces s No w , 38 5 F .3dat 1 33 0. Bu t ev enif we wer e to ass um e th athi s s ub m is si on s ar e m in im al ly suf

fic ie ntto warran t ap pe ll at e rev ie w of t he di sm is sa l o rd er, we co nc lu de th atDun so n fa il edto pl eadfact s s uf fic ie ntto supp ort a c la im . In h is 20 08 act io n b ro ug htun de r § 1 98 3, Du ns onsai d t ha t s ev eral of t he de fen da nt s t oo k hi s l eg al pape rs inDecem be r 20 05 an d re fu se d t o re tu rnth em , pre ve nt in g h im fro m pro pe rly fil in g s ta te co urt p os t-c on vi ct io n m ot io ns . Howev er, h is own subm is si on s o n app eal sh ow tha t Du ns on fil eda m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f an d asupp orti ng bri ef i n s ta te co urt. The all eg edde pr iv at io n o f hi s p ap ers di d n ot cau se hi m

to m is s an y

de ad li ne s. Du ns on says th athe was u nabl e to m ak e certa in cl ai m s o r in cl ud e p art ic ul ar fa ct s i n h is m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f be cau se The district cour

t also found Dunson’s c laim to be frivolous, but beca use our de novo 1 revie w of his re cord suppor ts the district court’s conc lusion that Dunson has failed to state a claim, we ne ed not consider whether his claim was frivolous.

4he di d n otha ve acce ss to hi s p ap ers , bu t Du ns on ha s n ei th er i de nt ifi edth os e

cl ai m s n orall eg edho w in cl us io n o f th e o m it te d fa ct s wo ul d h av e p ro du ceda di ffer en t re su lt . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f Dun so n’s co m pl ai nt . AFFIRMED .

5