[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-10034

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

ANTONIO R. DAVIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FORT LAUDERDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT (INTERNAL 

AFFAIRS), 

MARDIE LEVEY COHEN, 

( Judge),

CHARLES M. GREENE, 

( Judge),

HENRI SAINT JEAN,

#1647, 

LUC VAVAL, 

USCA11 Case: 23-10034 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 02/12/2024 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10034

#2065, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:22-cv-60769-RS

____________________

Before JORDAN, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Davis appeals the district court’s order dismissing 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the Fort Lauderdale Police 

Department (“FLPD”), several officers and employees of the 

FLPD, and two state court judges for failure to state a claim under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and as deficient under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Davis argues on appeal that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim and abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint as deficient under Rule 8(a).

We review a district court’s dismissal of an in forma pauperis

action for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) using the 

same standard as when reviewing a dismissal under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), that is, de novo and viewing the allegations 

USCA11 Case: 23-10034 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 02/12/2024 Page: 2 of 5
23-10034 Opinion of the Court 3

in the complaint as true. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 

(11th Cir. 1997). We review dismissals under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) 

under the abuse-of-discretion standard. Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. 

Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015). We give “liberal 

construction to the pleadings of pro se litigants, [but] ‘we nevertheless [require] them to conform to procedural rules.’” Albra v. Advan, 

Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Loren v. Sasser, 309 

F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002)).

When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the district court 

“shall dismiss the case at any time if [it] determines that” the action 

“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). “A complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to 

state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show the plaintiff is 

not entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires 

that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

It is within “the district court’s inherent authority to control its 

docket and ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits, which in 

some circumstances includes the power to dismiss a complaint for 

failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2).” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1320. A 

dismissal under Rule 8(a)(2) “is appropriate where ‘it is virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support 

which claim(s) for relief.’” Id. at 1325 (emphasis in original) (quoting Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364, 

366 (11th Cir. 1996)).

USCA11 Case: 23-10034 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 02/12/2024 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 23-10034

“Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides every person with the right 

to sue those acting under color of state law for violations of federal 

constitutional and statutory provisions.” Williams v. Bd. of Regents 

of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282, 1299 (11th Cir. 2007). A police 

department generally is not a legal entity that is subject to suit under § 1983, but capacity to be sued is determined by the law of the 

state in which the district court is located. Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 

1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)). Under Florida law, a police department does not have the capacity to be sued. 

Fla. City Police Dep’t v. Corcoran, 661 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. 

App. 1995). Moreover, “[j]udges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages for those acts taken while they are acting in 

their judicial capacity unless they acted in the ‘clear absence of all 

jurisdiction.’” Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435 

U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978)). “This immunity applies even when the 

judge’s acts are in error, malicious, or were in excess of his or her 

jurisdiction.” Id.

“Where a more carefully drafted complaint might state a 

claim, a plaintiff must be given at least one chance to amend the 

complaint before the district court dismisses the action with prejudice.” Bank v. Pitt, 928 F.2d 1108, 1112 (11th Cir. 1991), overruled in 

part by Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp., 314 F.3d 541, 542 

(11th Cir. 2002) (holding that “[a] district court is not required to 

grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the 

plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, never filed a motion to 

amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court.”). 

USCA11 Case: 23-10034 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 02/12/2024 Page: 4 of 5
23-10034 Opinion of the Court 5

However, “if a more carefully drafted complaint could not state a 

claim . . . , dismissal with prejudice is proper.” Id. A dismissal for 

failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is a dismissal on the 

merits and with prejudice. White v. Lemma, 947 F.3d 1373, 1376-77 

(11th Cir. 2020), receded from on other grounds by Wells v. Brown, 58 

F.4th 1347 (11th Cir. 2023).

Here, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Davis’s complaint for failure to state a claim, and it did not 

abuse its discretion in dismissing it as deficient under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 8(a). But we conclude that the district court did err by dismissing 

Davis’s complaint with prejudice without first providing him an 

opportunity to amend as to all defendants except for the Fort 

Lauderdale Police Department itself and Judges Mardi Cohen and 

Charles Greene because police departments are not subject to suit 

under § 1983, and judges are entitled to absolute immunity while 

acting in their judicial capacity. 

We thus affirm the district court’s order dismissing the complaint with respect to defendants FLPD, Judge Greene and Judge 

Davis, but vacate and remand for further proceedings with respect 

to all other defendants.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN 

PART.

USCA11 Case: 23-10034 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 02/12/2024 Page: 5 of 5