Court Opinion

ID: 9949004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 16:02:11.20996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:27.585237
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11439      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 03/08/2024   Page: 1 of 5

                                                     [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                      In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eleventh Circuit

                            ____________________

                                    No. 23-11439
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                            ____________________

       MS. JOHNNIE MARENE THOMAS,
                                                        Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       WILLIAM R. ASHE,
       In an individual capacity,

                                                      Defendant-Appellee.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Georgia
                   D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-00023-LGW-BWC
USCA11 Case: 23-11439     Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 03/08/2024    Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-11439

                            ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Johnnie Marene Thomas, proceeding pro se, appeals the
       district court’s dismissal with prejudice of her complaint against
       William Ashe, which alleged that Ashe violated her due process
       rights because he, rather than the attorney general, represented
       county agents in prior lawsuits that Thomas filed against the agents
       in their individual capacities.
              The pertinent facts are as follows. Thomas’s mother died
       recently, and probate Judge Robert Sweatt, Jr. presided over the
       estate proceedings. Judge Sweatt appointed attorney John Myers
       to serve as the estate’s administrator. Thomas objected, arguing
       that the Georgia probate code required that the lawful heir to the
       estate authorize the administrator’s appointment.           Thomas
       claimed to be the lawful heir to the estate; since Judge Sweatt never
       asked Thomas’s authorization in appointing Myers—and she
       hadn’t given it—she filed lawsuits against both Sweatt and Myers
       in their individual capacities.
              Ashe represented both Sweatt and Myers in these actions.
       Thomas objected on the ground that Ashe’s representation vio-
       lated her due process rights under both the Georgia Constitution
       and the United States Constitution. She contended that because
       Sweatt and Myers were “state actors” they could be represented
       only by the Attorney General. Ashe moved to dismiss that
USCA11 Case: 23-11439       Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 03/08/2024       Page: 3 of 5

       23-11439                 Opinion of the Court                            3

       complaint, and the district court granted his motion with prejudice.
       Thomas appeals that dismissal.
              We review a district court’s ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
       de novo. American United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043,
       1056–57 (11th Cir. 2007). We review a complaint dismissed under
       Rule 12(b)(6) in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all the
       plaintiff’s well‑pleaded facts are accepted as true. Henderson v.
       McMurray, 987 F.3d 997, 1001 (11th Cir. 2021). “To survive a
       12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient fac-
       tual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausi-
       ble on its face.” Stillwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 663 F.3d 1329, 1333 (11th
       Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted).
               The plausibility standard, however, requires “more than a
       sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quo-
       tation marks omitted). In considering a complaint under this stand-
       ard, “[l]egal conclusions without adequate factual support are enti-
       tled to no assumption of truth.” Mamani v. Berzain, 654 F.3d 1148,
       1153 (11th Cir. 2011).
               We liberally construe pro se pleadings and hold them to a
       less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys. Erick-
       son v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). But, “even in the case of pro se
       litigants this leniency does not give a court license to serve as de
       facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient plead-
       ing in order to sustain an action.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760
       F.3d 1165, 1168–69 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted).
USCA11 Case: 23-11439      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 03/08/2024     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11439

               To this end, “issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant
       are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874
       (11th Cir. 2008). An appellant abandons a claim where she makes
       only a passing reference to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner
       without authority or argument in support. Sapuppo v. Allstate Flo-
       ridian Ins., Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014).
               Here, even liberally construing Thomas’s brief, she does not
       sufficiently challenge the district court’s reasons for dismissing her
       complaint. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94. Thomas narrowly asserts that
       the court’s dismissal of her complaint was improper because she
       was not required to provide a detailed factual basis for her claims.
       But she fails to address the district court’s determination that “there
       is no Georgia law requiring a public official, when sued in his indi-
       vidual capacity, to be . . . represented” by a state or county attor-
       ney. Thus, the district court’s order is due to be affirmed, as
       Thomas failed to (1) plainly dispute the court’s reasoning that her
       claims lacked a legal basis or (2) cite any authority to support her
       argument that Ashe’s representation of Sweatt or Myers was im-
       proper. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681.
               The district court appropriately determined that Thomas
       failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because
       Thomas does not cite, and research does not reveal, any law that
       prohibits county agents from retaining private counsel when they
       are sued in an individual capacity. Because Thomas failed to
       demonstrate a basis for relief, she failed to state a valid claim, and
USCA11 Case: 23-11439    Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 03/08/2024   Page: 5 of 5

       23-11439             Opinion of the Court                      5

       the district court’s dismissal of her complaint must be affirmed.
       Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678; Stillwell, 663 F.3d at 1333.
             AFFIRMED.