Court Opinion

ID: 9931111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 16:02:30.16988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:19.640793
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12776   Document: 52-1    Date Filed: 02/08/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-12776
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       In re: ALBERTO SOLER SOMOHANO,
                                                              Debtor.
       ______________________________________________
       ALBERTO SOLER-SOMOHANO,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY,
       GOVERNMENT SPONSOR ENTERPRISE,
       FANNIE MAE,
       KONDAUR CAPITAL LLC,
       MICHAEL HANZMAN, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 22-12776        Document: 52-1       Date Filed: 02/08/2024        Page: 2 of 3

       2                        Opinion of the Court                     22-12776

                                                          Defendants-Appellees.

                              ____________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Florida
                      D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-23235-MGC,
                           Bkcy No. 1:21-bk-01057-AJC
                            ____________________

       Before WILSON, JORDAN, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Alberto Solar,1 proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
       dismissal of his appeal of a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of an ad-
       versary proceeding.
              We ordinarily review a district court’s dismissal for want of
       prosecution for abuse of discretion. Morewitz v. W. of Eng. Ship
       Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass’n, 62 F.3d 1356, 1366 (11th Cir.
       1995). However, issues not raised in an appellant’s initial brief are
       deemed abandoned and will not be addressed absent extraordinary
       circumstances. United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 871–72 (11th
       Cir. 2022) (en banc). “A party fails to adequately brief a claim when
       he does not plainly and prominently raise it.” Sapuppo v. Allstate

       1 While the appellant’s surname has been listed as “Soler-Somohano” and “So-

       lar‑Somohano” in certain filings, this opinion refers to him as “Solar,” con-
       sistent with the name he uses in his brief.
USCA11 Case: 22-12776      Document: 52-1       Date Filed: 02/08/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       22-12776                Opinion of the Court                          3

       Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation
       marks omitted). Importantly, we have “long held that an appellant
       abandons a claim when he either makes only passing references to
       it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting argu-
       ments and authority.” Id. “Pro se pleadings are held to a less strin-
       gent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, there-
       fore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d
       1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Yet an issue not briefed
       on appeal by a pro se litigant—even when liberally construed—is
       still deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th
       Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
              Here, Solar has abandoned on appeal the issue of whether
       the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his case for lack
       of prosecution. His brief challenges the Federal Housing Finance
       Agency’s validity as a party-appellee and raises unsubstantiated al-
       legations regarding the bankruptcy judge’s competency in the un-
       derlying case. Even with the benefit of liberal construction, Solar
       does not present arguments on appeal addressing the district
       court’s dismissal of his case, or its rationale in support thereof. Ac-
       cordingly, we affirm.
              AFFIRMED.