Court Opinion

ID: 9926742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 17:00:56.95587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:21.413831
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12038   Document: 51-1     Date Filed: 01/25/2024   Page: 1 of 8

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-12038
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       WILLIAM M. WINDSOR,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       JAMES N. HATTEN, et al.,

                                                           Defendants,

       B. GRUTBY,
       JUDGE WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.,
       JUDGE ORINDA D. EVANS,
       JUDGE JULIE E. CARNES,
       JOHN LEY, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 22-12038   Document: 51-1    Date Filed: 01/25/2024    Page: 2 of 8

       2                   Opinion of the Court                22-12038

                                                Defendants-Appellees.

                         ____________________

                Appeal from the United States District Court
                   for the Northern District of Georgia
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-01923-TWT
                         ____________________

                         ____________________

                               No. 22-12411
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       WILLIAM M. WINDSOR,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       JAMES N. HATTEN, et al.,

                                                          Defendants,

       B. GRUTBY,
       JUDGE WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.,
       JUDGE ORINDA D. EVANS,
       JUDGE JULIE E. CARNES,
USCA11 Case: 22-12038      Document: 51-1   Date Filed: 01/25/2024   Page: 3 of 8

       22-12038              Opinion of the Court                      3

       JOHN LEY, et al.,

                                                  Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-01923-TWT
                           ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is the latest in a line of frivolous litigation
       pursued by William Windsor, who is proceeding pro se. In 2011,
       the Northern District of Georgia issued a permanent injunction
       enjoining Windsor from pursuing any proceeding in any court
       without first obtaining leave of the federal district court in the
       appropriate district. In the summer of 2022, Windsor submitted
       various motions in the same district court, and the court denied
       them. Windsor now appeals those denials. After review, we affirm
       the district court’s decision.
                                I.    Background
             The relevant facts involve various motions and notices of
       appeal ﬁled by Windsor after the issuance of a permanent
       injunction in 2011. After Windsor sued several federal judges on
USCA11 Case: 22-12038       Document: 51-1       Date Filed: 01/25/2024       Page: 4 of 8

       4                        Opinion of the Court                    22-12038

       the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and the
       U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, as well as several
       court employees (for simplicity’s sake, we refer to the group
       collectively as “the Judges”), 1 the district court entered a permanent
       injunction against Windsor as follows:
              Plaintiff, William M. Windsor, and any parties acting
              in concert with him or at his behest, are
              PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from filing any
              complaint or initiating any proceeding, including any
              new lawsuit or administrative proceeding, in any
              court (state or federal) or agency in the United States
              without first obtaining leave of a federal district court
              in the district in which the new complaint or
              proceeding is to be filed.
       Windsor ﬁled various notices of appeal protesting the injunction.
       We dismissed his appeals in 2011 for want of prosecution and lack
       of jurisdiction.
               In 2018, Windsor sought modiﬁcation of the injunction.
       The district court partially granted his motion by adding language
       clarifying that the injunction did not apply to criminal complaints
       or protective orders.2 On appeal in 2019, we upheld the district
       court’s denial of the other requested modiﬁcations.

       1 Windsor first filed his complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County,

       Georgia. The United States removed the action to the Northern District of
       Georgia.
       2 The modification added the following language:
USCA11 Case: 22-12038         Document: 51-1        Date Filed: 01/25/2024         Page: 5 of 8

       22-12038                  Opinion of the Court                                5

              Then, at some point, Windsor became involved with Marcie
       Schreck, a Texas woman seeking to sue on behalf of her mother.
       In May 2022, the district court denied Windsor’s motion asking the
       court to grant leave for him and the Schrecks to ﬁle guardianship
       actions in any state court. In June 2022, Windsor appealed,
       challenging the district court’s May 2022 order, along with the 2011
       injunction order, the 2018 modiﬁcation order, and a second order
       from 2018. 3
              Also in June 2022, in the same lawsuit, the district court
       denied three more motions submitted by Windsor for leave to ﬁle
       various motions “based upon the well-documented history of
       frivolous ﬁlings by William Windsor and his abuse of the federal
       judicial system.” In July 2022, Windsor appealed the court’s order,

              The above restrictions do not apply to appeals in actions
              already in existence on July 15, 2011, criminal complaints, or
              petitions for protective orders the Plaintiﬀ feels necessary to
              protect his personal safety. However, any proceedings—
              whether criminal or civil—initiated against any judge or
              government employee for actions taken in the course of their
              oﬃcial duties are still enjoined according to the restrictions
              outlined above.

       3 At another point in 2018, the district court granted two of Windsor’s motions

       for leave to ﬁle complaints, concluding the related litigation involving Windsor
       and his family was “not within the scope of the persons and matters protected
       by the ﬁling restrictions.” In his 2022 appeal, Windsor appears to argue that
       this second 2018 order should have modiﬁed the injunction to allow state court
       ﬁlings.
USCA11 Case: 22-12038        Document: 51-1         Date Filed: 01/25/2024        Page: 6 of 8

       6                         Opinion of the Court                      22-12038

       again raising additional arguments about the 2011 injunction and
       the 2018 modiﬁcation order.
              This Court directed the clerk’s oﬃce to consolidate
       Windsor’s June 2022 and July 2022 appeals. After reviewing the
       parties’ responses to jurisdictional questions, we dismissed the
       appeals in part for lack of jurisdiction, to the extent that Windsor
       appealed from the 2011 and 2018 orders. But his appeals were
       allowed to proceed as to the district court’s May 21, 2022, and June
       30, 2022, orders.
            After careful review, we aﬃrm the district court’s denial of
       Windsor’s two 2022 motions.
                                     II.     Discussion4
              We have explained that “[a] party fails to adequately brief a
       claim when he does not plainly and prominently raise it, for
       instance by devoting a discrete section of his argument to those
       claims.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th
       Cir. 2014) (quotations omitted). Indeed, “an appellant abandons a
       claim when he either makes only passing references to it or raises

       4 The Judges argue we do not have subject matter jurisdiction over the May

       and June 2022 orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because they were not ﬁnal.
       However, we previously issued jurisdictional questions directing the parties to
       address whether those orders were ﬁnal and whether we had jurisdiction.
       After reviewing the jurisdictional responses, we concluded that the appeal
       could proceed as to the May and June 2022 orders, without reserving any
       issues or carrying any jurisdictional questions with the case. We see no reason
       to revisit the issue.
USCA11 Case: 22-12038      Document: 51-1       Date Filed: 01/25/2024     Page: 7 of 8

       22-12038                Opinion of the Court                          7

       it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and
       authority,” particularly “when [it is] ‘buried’ within [the appellant’s
       main] arguments.” Id. at 681–82. “Abandonment of a claim or
       issue can also occur when the passing references to it are made in
       the ‘statement of the case’ or ‘summary of the argument[.]’” Id. at
       681. Although “we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally,” we
       nonetheless deem “issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se
       litigant . . . abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th
       Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). “Moreover, we do not
       address arguments raised for the first time in a pro se litigant’s reply
       brief.” Id.
               Windsor abandons his claims relating to the 2022 orders by
       failing to “plainly and prominently” address them in the argument
       section of his brief. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681. Although
       Windsor discusses the 2022 orders in his “statement of the case”
       section, most of Windsor’s initial brief challenges the validity of
       the 2011 injunction. He only asserts in passing that the May 2022
       order (but not the June 2022 order) violated due process because
       there was no notice or hearing. Windsor also states that “[t]hese
       latest purported orders” deny him “his fundamental
       [c]onstitutional right of access to the courts[.]” Otherwise,
       Windsor writes in a conclusory fashion that “[a]ll orders” in the
       case “must be declared void.” These statements are not enough to
       challenge 2022 orders because they are “only passing references,”
       lack supporting arguments, and are “buried” within his main
       arguments about the injunction. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681–82. This
       is true even though Windsor is a pro se litigant. See Timson, 518 F.3d
USCA11 Case: 22-12038       Document: 51-1       Date Filed: 01/25/2024      Page: 8 of 8

       8                       Opinion of the Court                    22-12038

       at 874. And although Windsor discusses the 2022 orders in slightly
       greater detail in his reply brief, his assertions are too little too late.
       We will not consider an issue raised for the ﬁrst time in a reply brief.
       Id.
                                   III.   Conclusion
             We conclude that Windsor abandoned his claims related to
       the 2022 orders by failing to suﬃciently address those orders on
       appeal. Accordingly, we must aﬃrm.
              AFFIRMED.