[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-12455

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

IRINA CHEVALDINA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RAANAN KATZ, 

DANIEL KATZ,

TODD LEVINE,

R.K. FL MANAGEMENT, INC.,

R.K. ASSOCIATES, VII, INC., et al.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

USCA11 Case: 21-12455 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 1 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 21-12455

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-21363-CMA

____________________

Before, NEWSOM, BRANCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Irina Chevaldina appeals the sua sponte dismissal 

without prejudice of her pro se amended complaint for failure to 

comply with a court order requiring, among other things, that 

Chevaldina file her amended complaint by a specified deadline and 

provide a particularized basis for her domicile to establish diversity 

jurisdiction. Chevaldina also appeals the district court’s order dismissing, on absolute immunity grounds, her claims that an injunction issued by Judge Kathleen Williams violated her First Amendment rights. Chevaldina argues that the district court lacked authority to require particularized documentation for her domicile 

and that the amended complaint was timely because she postmarked it before the deadline, but it arrived late due to mailing delays outside of her control. She also argues that the district court 

lacked authority to dismiss her complaint against Judge Williams 

because the defendants had not yet been served, and she was not 

proceeding in forma pauperis. She claims that the district court effectively issued a summary judgment decision without giving her 

notice and an opportunity to respond. After reviewing the record 

USCA11 Case: 21-12455 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 2 of 7
21-12455 Opinion of the Court 3

and reading Chevaldina’s brief, we affirm the district court’s order 

of dismissal.1

I.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision 

to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order. Foudy v. 

Indian River Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 845 F.3d 1117, 1122 (11th Cir. 

2017). “Whether an official is entitled to absolute immunity is a 

question of law that we review de novo.” Stevens v. Osuna, 877 

F.3d 1293, 1301 (11th Cir. 2017). 

While we liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants, 

we still require conformity with procedural rules. See Campbell v. 

Air Jamaica, Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation 

marks omitted). 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.” Id. at 1168-69 (quotation marks omitted).

II. 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a paper not filed 

electronically is filed by delivery to the clerk or a judge. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 5(d)(2). We have held that district courts have the discretion to accept a notice of appeal filed after the deadline if the party 

has shown that the delay in filing resulted from “excusable neglect.” Zipperer by and Through Zipperer v. Sch. Bd. of Seminole 

1 The Appellees did not file appellate briefs.

USCA11 Case: 21-12455 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 3 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 21-12455

Cty., Fla., 111 F.3d 847, 849 (11th Cir. 1997). Whether a party has 

shown excusable neglect is a “flexible analysis” based on the totality 

of the circumstances, including “the danger of prejudice to the nonmovant, the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial 

proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was 

within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Id. at 849-50 (quotation marks and brackets omitted). We have upheld a district court’s ruling that an appellant established excusable neglect for filing a late notice of appeal where they mailed the notice six days before the required date 

of filing, several days before the three days required for normal 

mail delivery, and where the notice arrived only a day late. Id. at 

850.

A court generally may not sua sponte dismiss an action without providing the plaintiff with notice of its intent to dismiss or an 

opportunity to respond. Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321, 

1336 (11th Cir. 2011). Courts may, however, dismiss a complaint 

that is patently frivolous or if reversal would be futile. Id.

Federal courts must inquire into their own subject-matter 

jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking. Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Sec’y of State for State of Ala., 992 F.3d 

1299, 1316 (11th Cir. 2021). Challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(1) may be “facial 

attacks” or “factual attacks.” Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 

1528-29 (1990). When a complaint is attacked facially, the court 

merely asks whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a basis for 

USCA11 Case: 21-12455 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 4 of 7
21-12455 Opinion of the Court 5

subject-matter jurisdiction on the face of the complaint itself, taking all allegations in the complaint as true. Id. at 1529. When a 

complaint is attacked factually, however, “matters outside the 

pleadings, such as testimony and affidavits, are considered.” Id.

(quotation marks omitted). We need not reach jurisdictional issues 

where we could affirm the district court’s decision on procedural 

grounds. See In re Engle Cases, 767 F.3d 1082, 1108 n.30 (11th Cir. 

2014). 

Federal judges have absolute immunity from liability for 

damages stemming from judicial acts. Stevens, 877 F.3d at 1301. 

This immunity even applies to conduct that “was in error, was 

done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority.” Id. (quotation 

marks omitted). An act is “judicial” for purposes of immunity 

when it is typically performed by judges and the complaining party 

interacted with the judge in his judicial capacity. Id. at 1304. 

Whether an act is typically performed by judges is based on the 

nature and function of the act, not the factual circumstances of the 

particular action at issue. Id. at 1305.

III.

The record demonstrates that the district court was within 

its discretion to dismiss without prejudice Chevaldina’s amended 

complaint because she failed to comply with the court-ordered 

deadline to file it and failed to provide the court-ordered proof of 

her domicile necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction. The district court’s April 2021 order required Chevaldina to file an 

amended complaint by May 6, 2021, containing specific 

USCA11 Case: 21-12455 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 5 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 21-12455

information such as the basis for her alleged domicile in Indiana, an 

explanation why her case was not barred by res judicata and 

whether she intended to pursue a Driver’s Privacy Protection 

claim. The district court’s June 2021 order extended the deadline 

for Chevaldina to file her amended complaint to June 18 and further ordered her to submit a clear copy of her Indiana’s driver’s 

license. Chevaldina’s amended complaint was filed three days after 

the deadline set by the district court in its June order. Although 

Chevaldina presented documentation that she made reasonable efforts to deliver the amended complaint on time, given that she had 

already missed a previous filing deadline, the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in dismissing it. Because the district court dismissed it without prejudice, Chevaldina is free to re-file her complaint in compliance with any future court orders.

The record also demonstrates that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in determining that Chevaldina’s amended 

complaint failed to comply with the court order in other respects. 

Although Chevaldina explained why res judicata did not bar her 

claims, why the state court did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the 

settlement agreement at the center of her case and clarified that she 

was not pursuing a claim under the Driver’s Privacy Protection 

Act, she did not provide a clear copy of her Indiana driver’s license 

or other documentation supporting her basis for residency in Indiana. This information was pertinent for the district court to determine its jurisdiction.

USCA11 Case: 21-12455 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 6 of 7
21-12455 Opinion of the Court 7

Moreover, the district court properly sua sponte dismissed

the claims against Judge Williams because the judge was entitled 

to absolute immunity from being sued for judicial acts like issuing 

an injunction. In doing so, contrary to Chevaldina’s assertions, the 

district court properly considered only the facts that were present 

on the face of Chevaldina’s complaint.

Accordingly, for the aforementioned reasons, we conclude 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing 

Chevaldina’s amended complaint and sua sponte dismissing the 

claims against Judge Williams. 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 21-12455 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 7 of 7