Court Opinion

ID: 9407920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 20:01:33.94961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.874617
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10010   Document: 9-1     Date Filed: 07/10/2023    Page: 1 of 5

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-10010
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

      In re: ERIC WATKINS,
                                                              Appellant.

                         ____________________

               Appeal from the United States District Court
                   for the Southern District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 0:19-mc-63180-WPD
                        ____________________

      Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
      PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 23-10010      Document: 9-1       Date Filed: 07/10/2023     Page: 2 of 5

      2                       Opinion of the Court                   23-10010

              Eric Watkins, proceeding pro se, ﬁled a motion seeking leave
      to ﬁle a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging constitutional claims
      stemming from his suspension from a public library. Watkins al-
      leged that, on December 5, 2018, he was sitting quietly in the li-
      brary like other patrons, when a library supervisor handed him a
      notice that he was being suspended from the library for 90 days.
      He was escorted out by police and library security. According to
      the complaint, the library supervisor failed to disclose a reason for
      suspending Watkins either at the time she served the notice or later
      when he appealed the decision. Watkins won the appeal, but not
      before losing access to the library for more than a month. Watkins
      claims that, by suspending him without reason, the library super-
      visor violated his constitutional right to patronize a public library
      and discriminated against him by treating him diﬀerently than sim-
      ilarly situated patrons.
              Watkins is a serial litigant who is subject to a ﬁling injunction
      that prevents him from ﬁling any new lawsuit in the Southern Dis-
      trict of Florida without prior court approval. In a prior case, we
      aﬃrmed the ﬁling injunction so long as the court merely screened
      out the “frivolous and malicious” claims and allowed the “argua-
      ble” or “colorable” claims to go forward. See Watkins v. Dubreuil,
      820 F. App’x 940, 948–49 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks omit-
      ted). Here, the district court screened Watkins’s proposed pleading
      and determined he did not present an arguable case. Watkins ap-
      peals.
USCA11 Case: 23-10010       Document: 9-1       Date Filed: 07/10/2023     Page: 3 of 5

      23-10010                 Opinion of the Court                           3

                In general, we review de novo the legal suﬃciency of a claim,
       accepting the factual allegations in the complaint as true. See Mitch-
       ell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). Yet “[a] determi-
       nation of frivolity is best left to the district court, and we will re-
       view such determinations only for abuse of discretion.” Bilal v.
       Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001). In reviewing for frivol-
       ity, the court may consider facts outside the complaint, including
       “a litigant’s history of bringing unmeritorious litigation.” Id. at
       1350; see also Clark v. State of Ga. Pardons & Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636,
       640–41 (11th Cir. 1990). Because the district court screened for fri-
       volity and considered facts outside the complaint, we review for an
       abuse of discretion.
               “A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in
       law or fact.” Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349; see Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
       319, 325 (1989) (frivolity “embraces not only the inarguable legal
       conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation”). Moreover,
       even if a complaint legally states a claim and the facts are not fan-
       tastic, a dismissal on grounds of frivolousness might be justiﬁed in
       certain narrow circumstances, such as a “questionable claim” by a
       litigant with a “long history of bringing unmeritorious litigation.”
       Clark, 915 F.2d at 640–41. Any ﬁnding of frivolity must have sup-
       port in the record, however. See id. (vacating and remanding where
       “the record in this case establishes no explanation for concluding
       that [the] case is frivolous”). The court may not simply “adopt[] a
       presumption of frivolity in these cases.” Coﬁeld v. Ala. Pub. Serv.
       Comm’n, 936 F.2d 512, 519 (11th Cir. 1991).
USCA11 Case: 23-10010        Document: 9-1       Date Filed: 07/10/2023        Page: 4 of 5

      4                         Opinion of the Court                     23-10010

             Here, Watkins’s allegations arguably suggest he was denied
      equal protection when he was singled out for suspension from the
      library without reason. 1 See Grider v. City of Auburn, Ala., 618 F.3d
      1240, 1263–64 (11th Cir. 2010) (“To prevail on a class of one equal
      protection claim, Plaintiﬀs must show they were intentionally
      treated diﬀerently from others who were similarly situated and
      that there is no rational basis for the diﬀerence in treatment.”).
      Watkins alleged that no reason was ever given for the suspension.
      And we cannot infer anything about the grounds for the suspension
      since he prevailed in appealing it. Nor is there anything in the pro-
      posed complaint to suggest that Watkins was not similarly situated
      with other library patrons. Plus, Watkins’s allegations are not fan-
      ciful or wildly implausible.
              In denying leave to ﬁle, the district court primarily relied on
      Watkins’s litigation history, which we have described as “largely,
      though not entirely, meritless.” Watkins, 820 F. App’x at 946–47.
      But while the court suspected that the lawsuit was frivolous and
      consistent with a pattern of instigating a conﬂict and then suing,
      the court conceded it could not determine whether there was a ba-
      sis for the library suspension without further information relating
      to the content of the suspension notice. Because the current record
      does not support a ﬁnding of frivolity, dismissal—or, as here, denial
      of leave to ﬁle a complaint—was not appropriate. See Clark, 915

      1 Because we conclude that further proceedings are warranted on Watkins’s
      claims, we do not at this time address any potential procedural or substantive
      claim based on a protected liberty interest to be in a public library.
USCA11 Case: 23-10010      Document: 9-1     Date Filed: 07/10/2023      Page: 5 of 5

      23-10010               Opinion of the Court                          5

      F.2d at 640–41; Coﬁeld, 936 F.2d at 519 (rejecting application of a
      presumption of frivolity).
              Instead, to the extent more information is necessary to
      screen Watkins’s pleadings for frivolity under the ﬁling injunction,
      the district court may make reasonable demands for it. See Harris
      v. Menendez, 817 F.2d 737, 740 (11th Cir. 1987) (in reviewing for fri-
      volity, “a district court must conduct a suﬃcient inquiry into the
      matter to be certain both legally and factually that the plaintiﬀ has
      little or no chance of success”). The court is not bound by the facts
      alleged in the complaint and “may require the plaintiﬀ to particu-
      larize his allegations prior to service of process, and may ascertain
      whether there is a factual basis for the petitioner’s suit.” Id. (cita-
      tion and quotation marks omitted).
             Because the district court did not exercise this inquiry au-
      thority here, and because the current record does not support a
      ﬁnding of frivolity, we vacate and remand for further proceedings
      consistent with this opinion.
             VACATED AND REMANDED.