[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13837

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

JANICE DENISE BAKER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RESNICK & LEWIS, P.C., 

MACY'S FLORIDA STORES, 

BRIAN L. HARVELL ESQ, 

ROBERT J. SQUIRRE ESQ, 

BRYAN BOYSAW ESQ, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-13837 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2024 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13837

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:22-cv-81257-AMC

____________________

Before WILSON, LUCK, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Janice Baker, proceeding pro se, appeals the sua sponte dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). On appeal, she argues that: (1) the 

defendants committed professional misconduct and violated her 

disability rights; (2) the district court erred in denying her right to 

pursue her claim in forma pauperis (“IFP”); and (3) the state court 

wrongly decided her case. After careful review, we affirm.

Section 1915(e) provides that an in forma pauperis action or 

appeal shall be dismissed at any time if the court determines that it 

fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte

dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 

using the same standards that govern Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissals. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1489–90 (11th Cir. 1997). To 

survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege 

sufficient facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “[C]onclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as 

facts will not prevent dismissal.” Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomms., 372 

USCA11 Case: 22-13837 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2024 Page: 2 of 5
22-13837 Opinion of the Court 3

F.3d 1250, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted). To prevail on 

a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must establish 

that she was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under 

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

We hold pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard and liberally construe them. Campbell v. Air Jam., Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 

(11th Cir. 2014). However, that “leniency 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 (quotations omitted). An appellant abandons an issue by failing 

to challenge it on appeal. See Irwin v. Hawk, 40 F.3d 347, 347 n.1 

(11th Cir. 1994) (involving a pro se litigant). An appellant also abandons a claim where she presents it only in “passing references” or 

“in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and authority.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th 

Cir. 2014). “[S]imply stating that an issue exists, without further 

argument or discussion, constitutes abandonment of that issue and 

precludes our considering the issue on appeal.” Id. (quoting Singh 

v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009)). We may 

exercise our discretion to consider a forfeited issue if: “(1) the issue 

involves a pure question of law and refusal to consider it would 

result in a miscarriage of justice; (2) the party lacked an opportunity to raise the issue at the district court level; (3) the interest of 

substantial justice is at stake; (4) the proper resolution is beyond 

any doubt; or (5) the issue presents significant questions of general 

impact or of great public concern.” United States v. Campbell, 26 

F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc).

USCA11 Case: 22-13837 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2024 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13837

Additionally, we generally lack jurisdiction to directly review state court judgments, as “federal courts are not a forum for 

appealing state court decisions.” Staley v. Ledbetter, 837 F.2d 1016, 

1018 (11th Cir. 1988); Vasquez v. YII Shipping Co., 692 F.3d 1192, 

1195 (11th Cir. 2012) (“[F]ederal courts below the Supreme Court 

must not become a court of appeals for state court decisions.”).

Here, Baker has abandoned any challenge to the district 

court’s dismissal of her case, because, even when construing her 

brief liberally, Baker failed to properly challenge the district court’s 

dismissal of her case. See Campbell, 760 F.3d at 1168–69; Irwin, 40 

F.3d at 347 n.1; Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681. Rather than argue that 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) did not apply to her, Baker repeated her 

theory that she was wronged by the defendants without a supporting factual basis. Notably, these minimal and undeveloped allegations do not establish how 42 U.S.C. § 1983 applied to her. See West, 

487 U.S. at 48. As a result, Baker only provided conclusory allegations and failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim, 

and it was not error for the district court to dismiss her complaint 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See Mitchell, 112 F.3d at 1489–

90; Iqbal, 556 U.S at 678; Jackson, 372 F.3d at 1262. Nor do any of 

the exceptions that may allow us to consider a forfeited issue apply 

to Baker’s appeal. See Campbell, 26 F.4th at 873. 

In short, Baker has abandoned any challenge to the district 

court’s dismissal of her complaint. See Irwin, 40 F.3d at 347 n.1; 

Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681. Moreover, to the extent she challenges 

the findings from her state court case, we lack jurisdiction to hear 

USCA11 Case: 22-13837 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2024 Page: 4 of 5
22-13837 Opinion of the Court 5

an appeal from that court. See Staley, 837 F.2d at 1018; Vasquez, 692 

F.3d at 1195. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal 

of Baker’s claim and the denial of IFP. See Mitchell, 112 F.3d at 

1489–90; Iqbal, 556 U.S at 678; Jackson, 372 F.3d at 1262.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-13837 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2024 Page: 5 of 5