Court Opinion

ID: 9398677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 20:02:00.026536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:35.521133
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11406    Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 05/30/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11406
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       AARON MOHANLAL,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cv-61182-AHS
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11406         Document: 32-1          Date Filed: 05/30/2023          Page: 2 of 6

       2                           Opinion of the Court                        22-11406

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Aaron Mohanlal, a Florida prisoner represented by counsel
       on appeal, appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of
       his pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Mo-
       hanlal contends the district court erred when it dismissed his peti-
       tion because the local rule regarding page limits was inapplicable
       to his habeas petition and the court improperly considered his pe-
       tition given his status as a pro se litigant. After review, 1 we affirm
       the district court.
                                    I. BACKGROUND
             Mohanlal’s first § 2254 petition was 52 pages long. In order-
       ing Mohanlal to file an amended petition, the district court in-
       formed Mohanlal the petition “significantly exceeds this District’s
       20-page limit for motions and legal memoranda,”2 and cautioned
       Mohanlal the “failure to comply with this Order will result in

       1 The appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion, not de novo as
       Mohanlal contends, as Mohanlal’s appeal stems from his petition’s dismissal
       for failure to comply with court rules. Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483
       (11th Cir. 2006) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion a district court's dismissal
       for failure to comply with rules of court).
       2 Local Rule 7.1(c)(2) for the Southern District of Florida provides motions
       and legal memoranda filed with the court shall not exceed 20 pages without
       leave of the court. S.D. Fla. Local Rule 7.1(c)(2).
USCA11 Case: 22-11406      Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 05/30/2023     Page: 3 of 6

       22-11406                Opinion of the Court                         3

       dismissal of this case, and that no further amendments will be per-
       mitted.” (Emphasis in original). Mohanlal’s amended petition was
       42 pages long, which the district court again stated “significantly
       exceeds this District’s 20-page limit for motions and legal memo-
       randa.” The district court explained, “Petitioner completely ig-
       nored the Court’s Order and has resubmitted another lengthy Pe-
       tition with cramped writing and extraneous pages inserted
       throughout.” In ordering Mohanlal to file a second amended peti-
       tion, the district court once again cautioned Mohanlal that the “fail-
       ure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this case,
       and that no further amendments will be permitted.” (Emphasis in
       original). Despite these warnings, Mohanlal’s second amended pe-
       tition was 31 pages long. The district court dismissed with preju-
       dice for failure to comply with the Court’s orders, stating Mohanlal
       had “received sufficient notice of the Court’s authority to dismiss
       for failure to comply with court orders,” and that “[n]everthless,
       Petitioner is unwilling to comply with the Court’s Orders.”
                                 II. DISCUSSION
              The district did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed
       Mohanlal’s second amended petition with prejudice. The court
       was within its discretion to dismiss the petition for failure to com-
       ply with its clear orders to comply with the 20-page limit. See Fed.
       R. Civ. P. 41(b) (providing a district court may dismiss a claim if the
       plaintiff fails to comply with a court order); Betty K Agencies, Ltd.
       v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating a
USCA11 Case: 22-11406      Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 05/30/2023     Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11406

       district court may dismiss a claim sua sponte based on its inherent
       power to manage its docket).
              Each of Mohanlal’s petitions was accompanied by a motion
       requesting a change to the page limit, suggesting Mohanlal was
       aware of the rule when he filed his first petition and continued to
       ignore the district court’s explicit orders to follow the rule in each
       successive filing. The district court warned Mohanlal several times
       that his petition needed to comply with the court’s orders setting
       out the page limit, or his petition would be dismissed. See Moon
       v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (“While dismissal
       is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order,
       especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not
       an abuse of discretion.”).
               Even after he received multiple orders directing him not to
       exceed the page limit, Mohanlal continued to file amended peti-
       tions that were far over the page limit. Mohanlal’s pro se status did
       not excuse him from complying with the court’s orders directing
       him to follow the local rules for the length of court filings. See
       Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (stating pro
       se litigants are required to comply with applicable procedural
       rules). Despite Mohanlal’s argument on appeal that the Southern
       District’s Local Rules were inapplicable to his petition, the district
       court ultimately dismissed the petition because Mohanlal repeat-
       edly did not follow the page limit rule after he was ordered to do
       so, not because of the rule itself, which was within the court’s in-
       herent power to manage its docket. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Moon,
USCA11 Case: 22-11406      Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 05/30/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       22-11406                Opinion of the Court                         5

       863 F.2d at 837; see also Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1073-
       74 (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (recognizing “[f]ederal courts have
       both the inherent power and the constitutional obligation to pro-
       tect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to
       carry out Article III functions” and courts have “a responsibility to
       prevent single litigants from unnecessarily encroaching on the ju-
       dicial machinery needed by others”).
               A district court abuses its discretion when it sua sponte dis-
       misses a civil action with prejudice where (1) the court fails to make
       a finding the plaintiff acted willfully or that a lesser sanction would
       not have sufficed, and (2) nothing in the record supports a finding
       that the plaintiff acted willfully or that a lesser sanction would not
       have sufficed. Betty K Agencies, 432 F.3d at 1338-42. While the
       district court did not expressly find other sanctions were not suffi-
       cient, the number of warnings and final chances given to Mohanlal,
       coupled with the clarity of the court’s instructions, show Mohanlal
       willfully failed to comply with court orders and that dismissal with
       prejudice was a proper sanction. See id. While we have remanded
       cases in which there has been no finding on the efficacy of sanctions
       less severe than dismissal, we have also affirmed dismissals under
       Rule 41(b) when the record supported an implicit finding that any
       lesser sanctions would not serve the interests of justice. Mingo v.
       Sugar Cane Growers Co-op of Fla., 864 F.2d 101, 102-03 (11th Cir.
       1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985).
       While dismissal with prejudice is a severe sanction, the record
       shows the district court gave several warnings to Mohanlal, and the
USCA11 Case: 22-11406         Document: 32-1        Date Filed: 05/30/2023         Page: 6 of 6

       6                          Opinion of the Court                      22-11406

       only action left at its disposal, after he repeatedly and willfully failed
       to file a proper petition, was dismissal. See Goforth, 766 F.2d at
       1535. Accordingly, we affirm.3
              AFFIRMED.

       3 To the extent Mohanlal requests in his brief that we take judicial notice of
       his criminal proceedings, his request is DENIED because those proceedings
       are not relevant to the district court’s analysis and dismissal of the petition.