Court Opinion

ID: 9943059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 18:02:24.605377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:00.747058
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13450    Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 02/21/2024   Page: 1 of 11

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-13450
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        LINDA IFEOMA AMAECHI,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        GEICO,

                                                     Defendant-Appellee.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 5:20-cv-00442-TES
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13450      Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 02/21/2024     Page: 2 of 11

        2                      Opinion of the Court                22-13450

        Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                Linda Ifeoma Amaechi, proceeding pro se, appeals the
        district court’s order dismissing, with prejudice, her recast
        complaint that alleged several claims under Title VII of the Civil
        Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m). Amaechi
        alleged that her former employer, Geico, discriminated against her
        based on race, gender, sex, national origin, and religion. She also
        alleged that Geico retaliated against her for filing an internal
        complaint. After she repeatedly failed to follow the Federal Rules
        of Civil Procedure and court orders throughout the discovery
        process, the district court dismissed her complaint for failure to
        prosecute. For the following reasons, we affirm.
             I.     FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
              In April 2021, following a series of events not relevant to the
        present appeal, Amaechi ﬁled a recast complaint, the operative
        pleading, against Geico. Amaechi alleged that Geico failed to
        promote her and maintained unequal terms and conditions for her
        employment compared to her peers. She also alleged that she
        suﬀered retaliation because Geico became hostile towards her after
        she complained to the company that she was being discriminated
        against.
               Speciﬁcally, Amaechi alleged the following claims under
        Title VII: race discrimination because Geico failed to promote her,
        but promoted her peers of a diﬀerent race (Count 1); gender and
USCA11 Case: 22-13450       Document: 24-1       Date Filed: 02/21/2024      Page: 3 of 11

        22-13450                Opinion of the Court                            3

        sex discrimination because Geico showed favoritism of peers of the
        opposite sex and promoted those peers (Count 2); religious
        discrimination because Geico promoted peers that did not share
        the same religious sentiment or mode of dress as her (Count 3);
        national origin discrimination because Geico used her national
        origin to her detriment and failed to address harassing behavior
        that she experienced (Count 4); and, ﬁnally, retaliation, as Geico
        neither protected nor mitigated the harassment that she suﬀered
        after she complained of discriminatory practices (Count 5). She
        sought the following damages: loss of income; loss of vesting in
        her 401(k)/Vanguard account; loss of aﬀordable health insurance
        totaling $298,000; $1,600,000 due to emotional harm, stress, mental
        anguish, and inconvenience; and punitive damages totaling
        $3,600,000 for Geico’s gross neglect and Title VII violations.
                Geico ﬁrst moved to dismiss Amaechi’s recast complaint
        pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Geico
        asserted that any time-barred claims should be dismissed. 1 It
        identiﬁed Count 2 for gender and sex discrimination, Count 5 for
        retaliation, and any claims occurring before November 7, 2018, as
        time-barred. Amaechi then moved to strike Geico’s motion to
        dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(f ), arguing that Geico presented an
        insuﬃcient defense.

        1 On appeal, Amaechi does not challenge any of the time-barred claims.

        Therefore, any challenge to those claims is abandoned. Sapuppo v. Allstate
        Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680–81 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that an
        appellant abandons any claims that she fails to properly raise on appeal).
USCA11 Case: 22-13450      Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 02/21/2024     Page: 4 of 11

        4                      Opinion of the Court                22-13450

               The district court granted in part and denied in part Geico’s
        motion to dismiss and construed Amaechi’s motion to strike as a
        response, thereby denying her motion to strike. The district court
        found that, because Amaechi ﬁled her U.S. Equal Employment
        Opportunity Commission charge on May 6, 2019, any
        discriminatory actions that occurred before November 7, 2018,
        were time-barred. The district court thus dismissed all claims that
        arose from Geico’s alleged discrimination prior to November 7,
        2018, and allowed her to proceed with all claims after that date,
        including her retaliation claim in 2019. Geico then answered,
        denied liability, and asserted various defenses.
                The district court entered a scheduling order. The parties
        conducted a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f ) conference on
        August 16, 2021. On December 28, 2021, the district court held a
        telephone conference because of Amaechi’s failure to provide
        discovery documents, but she did not appear at the conference.
        Amaechi acknowledges that she was informed of the conference
        but claims that she failed to appear because she never received call-
        in instructions. The next day, the district court issued an order and
        reminded Amaechi of her duty to prosecute her case. It ordered
        Amaechi to immediately provide Geico with the documents at
        issue and, to ensure compliance, noted that Geico may move to
        compel discovery. The district court stated that if Amaechi’s failure
        to comply continued, she risked having her case dismissed pursuant
        to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
USCA11 Case: 22-13450     Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 02/21/2024    Page: 5 of 11

        22-13450              Opinion of the Court                        5

               Geico then moved to compel, attaching to its motion its
        discovery requests, Amaechi’s responses, and other
        correspondence between the parties. It noted that it had served
        Amaechi with interrogatories and requests for production on
        September 13, 2021, but when overdue responses were not received
        by October 20, 2021, it sent a letter requesting such responses.
        Geico explained that Amaechi twice asked for additional time to
        provide responses, which it granted, but after receiving no response
        upon a good-faith eﬀort, it sought the court’s intervention on
        December 16, 2021. It noted that Amaechi replied on December
        19, 2021, and informed the court that she would send the response
        the best way she knew how. Geico spoke with Amaechi by
        telephone, and she conﬁrmed that she would send complete
        written discovery responses, initial disclosures, and responsive
        documents by December 24, 2021. It then contended that Amaechi
        sent her initial disclosures on December 26, 2021, but they were
        incomplete. It also noted that Amaechi failed to appear at the
        telephone conference on December 28, 2021. It argued that it was
        unable to complete its discovery until Amaechi provided complete
        responses to discovery requests and initial disclosures.
                The district court granted Geico’s motion to compel. In its
        order, the court noted that, although Amaechi did not receive call-
        in instructions for the telephone conference, the court ordered her
        to provide the documents at issue, notiﬁed Geico it could move to
        compel, and warned Amaechi that she ran the risk of having her
        case dismissed if she failed to comply with its orders or prosecute
        her case. The district court then noted that Amaechi had not
USCA11 Case: 22-13450      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 02/21/2024     Page: 6 of 11

        6                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13450

        provided any explanation as to why it should not compel discovery.
        It again reminded her that failure to comply could result in
        dismissal of her case.
              Thereafter, Geico moved to dismiss for lack of prosecution
        with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
        and to stay discovery. It argued that Amaechi failed to properly
        prosecute her case by failing (1) to respond to written discovery, (2)
        to comply with orders from the court, and (3) to attend her
        properly noticed deposition. Geico noted that the pattern of
        deﬁcient responses continued, and the district court again warned
        Amaechi that her conduct ran the risk of dismissal. Amaechi then
        responded to Geico’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution.
        She argued that she had extenuating circumstances due to her
        health that made her unable to respond, that she never received
        adequate call-in instructions for the December 28, 2021, telephone
        conference, and that she was unable to attend the initial deposition
        because the location was over 100 miles away from her.
               The district court granted Geico’s motion and dismissed
        Amaechi’s recast complaint. The district court described the
        procedural history of Amaechi’s case and noted that it had a
        “diﬃcult discovery period” and that the case “derailed early, []
        despite the Court’s lenience, patience, and direction [as Amaechi]
        stubbornly continued to operate outside the procedural tracks.”
        The district court explained that she missed deadlines, disregarded
        discovery rules, ignored court directives, concealed documents,
        and gave intentionally vague responses to easy questions. It noted
USCA11 Case: 22-13450      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 02/21/2024     Page: 7 of 11

        22-13450               Opinion of the Court                         7

        that she ﬁled initial disclosures nearly four months late and ignored
        Geico’s valid discovery requests, which caused the court to order
        Amaechi to comply with discovery rules. It stated that Amaechi
        did not respond to the court’s order until after the deadline. It also
        stated that she was noticed for her deposition and failed to appear
        or inform Geico that she would not be able to attend. The district
        court explained that it again had warned Amaechi to comply with
        discovery requests and informed her that, if she did not, she ran the
        risk of having her case dismissed. It noted that, despite Amaechi
        complying with its order, her responses were incomplete and
        convoluted. The district court described how Amaechi’s discovery
        responses were insuﬃcient and highlighted that she provided
        “non-answers,” admitted to withholding relevant documents and
        audio recordings, and refused to disclose the names of her treating
        physicians and relevant people with whom she worked. The
        district court emphasized that Amaechi “objected” to each of
        Geico’s requests for production and did not timely provide “a single
        document or piece of evidence before it came time for the [c]ourt
        to rule on the merits of her case.” The court also pointed out that
        Amaechi violated numerous local rules.
               Further, the district court noted that, despite Amaechi’s
        status as a pro se litigant, she did not have a license to ignore the
        court’s rules and orders. It also noted that Amaechi had been
        warned at least three times that failure to prosecute her case would
        result in dismissal. The district court emphasized that it had
        ordered compliance, set conferences, and given extensions, and,
        thus, was left with a ﬁrm conviction that no other sanction would
USCA11 Case: 22-13450      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 02/21/2024     Page: 8 of 11

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13450

        suﬃce. Accordingly, it granted Geico’s motion and dismissed
        Amaechi’s recast complaint. Amaechi ﬁled a timely notice of
        appeal for this order.
                               II.    DISCUSSION
                We review a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) dismissal
        for abuse of discretion. Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns, 178 F.3d
        1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999). A discretionary decision means the
        district court has a “range of choice, and that its decision will not
        be disturbed as long as it stays within that range and is not
        influenced by any mistake of law.” Guideone Elite Ins. Co. v. Old
        Cutler Presbyterian Church, Inc., 420 F.3d 1317, 1324 (11th Cir. 2005)
        (quoting Ameritas Variable Life Ins. Co. v. Roach, 411 F.3d 1328, 1330
        (11th Cir. 2005)). Although we construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings
        liberally, they are not relieved from following procedural rules.
        Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).
               As an initial matter, Amaechi arguably fails to challenge the
        grounds relied upon by the district court in its dismissal order. On
        appeal, issues that are not briefed are deemed to be abandoned.
        Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir.
        2004). An appellant fails to adequately brief a claim when it has not
        been plainly and prominently raised. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian
        Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014). We have long held that
        an appellant abandons a claim when it is raised “in a perfunctory
        manner without supporting arguments and authority. Id. Further,
        when a district court order is based on multiple, independent
        grounds, an appellant must demonstrate that “every stated ground
USCA11 Case: 22-13450      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 02/21/2024     Page: 9 of 11

        22-13450               Opinion of the Court                         9

        for the judgment against h[er] is incorrect.” Id. at 680. The district
        court’s order was based on Amaechi’s failure to prosecute her case
        via her disregard of the court’s orders and the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure, and her failure to respond to discovery, despite
        numerous warnings that such failure would result in dismissal. On
        appeal, Amaechi was required to properly challenge these grounds
        to avoid abandonment but failed to do so. Id. at 681. She does not
        raise any argument or cite to any authority to explain her lack of
        compliance with the district court’s orders, nor address the fact that
        the court repeatedly warned that her failure to prosecute would
        result in dismissal. Instead, she makes mere conclusory assertions
        that dismissal was unfair. See id. at 682. Given all of this, we could
        deem her challenge to the district court’s dismissal to be
        abandoned and affirm on this basis alone.
                But even if we assume that Amaechi implicitly preserved
        challenges in the preceding respect, the district court did not abuse
        its discretion by dismissing her recast complaint under Rule 41(b).
        Rule 41(b) provides that, “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to
        comply with [the Rules of Civil Procedure] or a court order, a
        defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.”
        A district court may dismiss a case for failure to comply with court
        rules “under the authority of either Rule 41(b) or the court’s
        inherent power to manage its docket.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty.
        Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1321 n.10 (11th Cir. 2015). To dismiss
        with prejudice under Rule 41(b), the court must find that “(1) a
        party engage[d] in a clear pattern of delay or willful contempt
        (contumacious conduct); and (2) the district court specifically finds
USCA11 Case: 22-13450      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 02/21/2024     Page: 10 of 11

        10                     Opinion of the Court                  22-13450

        that lesser sanctions would not suffice.” Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v.
        M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337–38 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting
        World Thrust Films, Inc. v. Int’l Fam. Entm’t, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456
        (11th Cir. 1995)). Although dismissal with prejudice is a drastic
        remedy, we have stated that “dismissal upon disregard of an order,
        especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not
        an abuse of discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th
        Cir. 1989).
               Here, Amaechi repeatedly failed to follow the Federal Rules
        of Civil Procedure and court orders throughout the discovery
        process. See Gratton, 178 F.3d at 1374; Betty K Agencies, 432 F.3d at
        1337. Particularly, she submitted written discovery requests late
        and failed to produce requested documents, despite her promises
        to do so and Geico’s multiple requests. She also failed to appear at
        her initial deposition, despite receiving notice, and did not
        communicate her absence to Geico or to the court. Further, the
        court warned her at least three times that her continued failure to
        comply and diligently prosecute her case could result in dismissal.
        Moon, 863 F.2d at 837. Her consistent disregard for the Federal
        Rules of Civil Procedure and the district court’s orders shows a
        clear pattern of willful contempt. Betty K Agencies, 432 F.3d at 1337–
        38. And the district court’s explicit finding that lesser sanctions
        would not suffice is amply supported by the record as summarized
        above. See id. at 1338.
               Therefore, even if Amaechi had properly raised her
        challenge to the district court’s dismissal, we conclude that the
USCA11 Case: 22-13450     Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 02/21/2024    Page: 11 of 11

        22-13450              Opinion of the Court                       11

        district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing her recast
        complaint under Rule 41(b). Indeed, Amaechi repeatedly failed to
        follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and court orders
        throughout the discovery process of her case. Accordingly, we
        affirm.
              AFFIRMED.