[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-14351

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

DOUGLAS MARSHALL JACKSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MARK INCH, 

Individual and Official Capacity as Secretary, 

J. BALDRIDGE, 

Individual and Official Capacity as Warden, 

R SCHMITT, 

Individual and Official Capacity as Assistant Warden, 

JOHNNY FRAMBO, 

Individual and Official Capacity as D/B/A Chaplaincy

Services Administrator for Fl Department of Corrections, 

USCA11 Case: 21-14351 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 1 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 21-14351

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 5:21-cv-00255-TPB-PRL

____________________

Before GRANT, TJOFLAT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Jackson, a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from 

the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of his amended complaint 

against former Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections 

(“FDOC”) March Inch, prison officials J. Baldridge, R. Schmitt, and 

Johnny Frambo, and the FDOC, as frivolous, malicious, and insufficient to state a claim. His complaint raised violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 

U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and purported to raise 

claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 247.1

Jackson makes four arguments on appeal: (1) the District 

Court erred by dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim; 

(2) the District Court erred by failing to enforce the Establishment 

1 On appeal, Jackson has abandoned all his claims besides those raised under 

RLUIPA.

USCA11 Case: 21-14351 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 2 of 6
21-14351 Opinion of the Court 3

Clause and sovereignty of his religious group; (3) the District Court 

abused its discretion by denying his petition for a writ of mandamus; and (4) the District Court abused its discretion by denying his 

motion for a preliminary injunction. 2 We consider each argument in turn.

I. 

Courts must review, before docketing or as soon as practicable after docketing, any civil complaint in which a prisoner seeks 

redress from a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or 

dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted. Id. (b)(1). We review de 

novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a 

claim pursuant to § 1915A(b)(1) and apply the same standard used 

for dismissals pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Leal v. Ga. Dep’t 

of Corr., 254 F.3d 1276, 1278-79 (11th Cir. 2001). 

An appellant abandons any argument not briefed before us, 

made in passing, or raised briefly without supporting arguments or 

authority. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330

(11th Cir. 2004); Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 

2 We note that Jackson moves to substitute the current FDOC Secretary, 

Ricky Dixon for Inch in his official capacity. We conclude that an order substituting Dixon is unnecessary here because Dixon was automatically substituted for Inch in his official capacity when Inch resigned as secretary. Fed. R. 

App. P. 43(c)(2). We deny the motion without further discussion. 

USCA11 Case: 21-14351 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 3 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 21-14351

681 (11th Cir. 2014). To obtain reversal of a district court judgment 

that is based on multiple, independent grounds, an appellant must 

argue that each ground is incorrect: if he fails to challenge any 

ground on appeal, the judgment is due to be affirmed. See 

Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680. 

Here, Jackson does not argue on appeal that the court 

abused its discretion by finding that his complaint was frivolous or 

malicious and has thus abandoned any argument on those issues. 

See Access Now, Inc., 385 F.3d at 1330. Because he does not challenge on appeal two of the court’s independent grounds for the dismissal of his complaint, we affirm that dismissal. See Sapuppo, 739 

F.3d at 680. Furthermore, his assertions that the defendants burdened his religious exercise and that he was denied group worship 

services were conclusory. See Oxford Asset Mgmt. v. Jaharis, 297 

F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002). 

II. 

Jackson has abandoned his arguments that the court failed 

to enforce the Establishment Clause or the sovereignty of his religious group by failing to provide supporting arguments. See 

Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681. 

III. 

We review the denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus 

for an abuse of discretion. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist., 

426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy 

that is solely invoked in extraordinary situations. Id. at 402. The 

USCA11 Case: 21-14351 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 4 of 6
21-14351 Opinion of the Court 5

writ should issue solely where the party seeking it has no other 

means of obtaining the relief he desires and shows that his right to 

issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable. Id. at 403. 

Here, Jackson has abandoned any argument that the court 

erred by denying his petition for a writ of mandamus by failing to 

raise supporting arguments and authorities. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d 

at 681. Furthermore, he failed to indisputably establish that he 

lacked any other means of obtaining relief or that he was entitled to 

issuance of the writ. See Kerr, 426 U.S. at 403. 

IV. 

We review the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion. See Sierra Club v. Georgia Power 

Co., 180 F.3d 1309, 1310 (11th Cir. 1999). To receive a preliminary 

injunction, a movant must demonstrate that he (1) is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) will be irreparably injured if the injunction 

is denied, (3) is threatened by an injury greater than the injury the 

opposing party may suffer from an injunction, and (4) is requesting 

an injunction that would not be against the public interest. Siegel 

v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A movant 

must clearly meet his burden of persuasion on each element. Id. 

Finally, a finding that a complaint fails to state a claim moots any 

issues regarding a preliminary injunction. Gissendaner v. Comm’r, 

Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 794 F.3d 1327, 1330 n.3 (11th Cir. 2015). 

USCA11 Case: 21-14351 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 5 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 21-14351

Here, Jackson has abandoned any argument that the district 

court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a preliminary 

injunction because he has failed to provide supporting arguments 

and authorities. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681. Furthermore, his 

motion was moot once the court dismissed his complaint. Gissendaner, 794 F.3d at 1330 n.3. 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 21-14351 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 6 of 6