Court Opinion

ID: 9364965
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 20:00:41.496525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:41.632887
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13342      Document: 14-1        Date Filed: 01/20/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                       [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                            ____________________

                                      No. 22-13342
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                            ____________________

       CARLTON EUGENE HOOKER, JR.,
                                                          Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       KEVIN T. HANRETTA,
       Individually and Officially,
       KAREN MULCAHY,
       Officially only,

                                                      Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13342       Document: 14-1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023      Page: 2 of 7

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   22-13342

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cv-01614-TPB-TGW
                            ____________________

       Before WILSON, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Carlton Hooker, Jr., appeals from the district court’s sua
       sponte dismissal of his civil rights complaint on the ground that it
       was “an attempted end run” around two pre-filing injunctions
       entered against Hooker in prior proceedings. After review, we
       conclude the district court erred and we remand for further
       proceedings.
                                  I.      Background
              At one time, Hooker was employed as a police officer at Bay
       Pines Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Florida. Hooker v.
       Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 607 F. App’x 918, 919 (11th Cir.
       2015) (unpublished) (Hooker I). However, in 2010, Bay Pines
       terminated Hooker’s employment. Id. Over the last decade,
       Hooker has filed numerous suits against the United States
       Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) and individuals associated
       with that department raising employment discrimination claims
       and claims related to the VA’s subsequent vacancy announcements
       and its failure to hire him. See id. at 919–920; see also Hooker v.
       Sec’y, Dep’t of Veteran Affs., No. 21-13311, 2022 WL 4365798, at
       *1 (11th Cir. Sept. 21, 2022). As a result, on August 8, 2021, a district
USCA11 Case: 22-13342      Document: 14-1     Date Filed: 01/20/2023     Page: 3 of 7

       22-13342               Opinion of the Court                         3

       court judge issued a pre-filing injunction enjoining Hooker “from
       filing any new [pro se] action, complaint, or claim for relief against
       the Secretary of Veterans Affairs related to his employment in
       federal court, state court, or any other forum.” Hooker v. Wilkie,
       No. 8:20-cv-02557-KKM-JSS, Doc. 26 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2021).
              Thereafter, Hooker brought another action against the
       United States raising claims related to a 2016 “ban” from the Bay
       Pines facility placed on him by the VA. Hooker v. United States,
       No. 8:22-cv-00537-KKM-MRM, Doc. 29 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2022).
       On August 11, 2022, a different district court judge modified the
       earlier pre-filing injunction to enjoin Hooker “from filing [pro se]
       any new action, complaint, or claim for relief against the
       Department of Veterans Affairs, its employees, or any agency of
       the United States, related to his employment and/or the ‘ban’
       imposed by the VA, under any theory.” Id.
               However, in July 2022, prior to the August 11, 2022,
       modification of the pre-filing injunction, Hooker filed the
       underlying complaint in the Middle District of Florida. In the
       complaint, Hooker did not raise any claims related to employment
       with the VA. Instead, he alleged that on several occasions between
       2016 and 2018, the VA unlawfully “banned” him from the Bay
       Pines facility based on false information. He asserted that as a
       result of the ban, he was “consistently harassed [sic] by the VA
       police” when he visited another outpatient clinic for treatment, and
       that he had been denied access to medical care at the Bay Pines
       facility and VA benefits and services at a regional office, prevented
USCA11 Case: 22-13342         Document: 14-1         Date Filed: 01/20/2023         Page: 4 of 7

       4                          Opinion of the Court                       22-13342

       from visiting a family member in the Bay Pines facility, and denied
       access to the Bay Pines VA National Cemetery.
               Although Hooker purported to serve the defendants via
       registered mail, they never entered an appearance, and Hooker
       moved for summary judgment.1 Thereafter, the district court sua
       sponte dismissed the complaint with prejudice in an endorsed
       order, concluding that it was “an attempted end run” around the
       pre-filing injunctions discussed previously. Hooker, proceeding
       pro se, appealed. 2

       1 Two months after Hooker filed this appeal, the defendants who did not
       appear below filed in this Court an out of time motion for an extension of time
       to file a response brief. In the motion, the defendants state that, although
       Hooker purportedly served them via mail, they did not receive notice of the
       case and were unaware of the filing until recently. We DENY AS MOOT the
       motion for extension of time to file a response brief. We direct the district
       court on remand to determine whether Hooker served the defendants. We
       also note that there does not appear to be any personal service on the
       defendant who was named in his individual capacity.
       2 We note that Hooker filed his notice of appeal over forty days from the
       endorsed order, which would normally render his appeal untimely. See Fed.
       R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (providing that in a civil case, absent circumstances not
       present here, a notice of appeal must be filed “within 30 days after entry of the
       judgment or order appealed from”). However, because the district court did
       not enter a separate written judgment as required by Federal Rule of Civil
       Procedure 58, the time to appeal did not begin to run for purposes of Rule 4(a)
       until 150 days after the entry of the endorsed order on the docket. See id. Rule
       4(a)(7)(A)(ii). Therefore, Hooker’s appeal is timely.
USCA11 Case: 22-13342         Document: 14-1         Date Filed: 01/20/2023          Page: 5 of 7

       22-13342                   Opinion of the Court                                 5

                                      II.       Discussion
               Liberally construing Hooker’s pro se brief, he argues,
       among other grounds, that the district court abused its discretion
       in dismissing his complaint because he did not violate the initial
       pre-filing injunction as the underlying complaint “makes no
       mention of employment.” He further maintains that the complaint
       did not violate the modified pre-filing injunction which enjoined
       him from filing “any new action” against the VA and associated
       individuals relating to either his employment or “the ‘ban’ imposed
       by the VA” because he filed the underlying complaint in July 2022,
       prior to the modification of the pre-filing injunction.3 After careful
       review, we must agree.
              A district court may sua sponte dismiss a case for failure to
       comply with court rules under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
       41(b) or based on its inherent authority to manage its own docket.
       Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th
       Cir. 2005). Although the district court did not specify whether it
       relied on Rule 41(b) or its inherent authority to sua sponte dismiss
       the underlying action, we review dismissals under either authority
       for an abuse of discretion. Id.
             Here, the plain language of the initial 2021 pre-filing
       injunction enjoined Hooker from filing any new pro se action,

       3 Hooker also takes issue with the dismissal of several of his prior cases as well
       as the modification of the pre-filing injunction and accuses various individuals
       of fraud upon the court. We do not reach these issues.
USCA11 Case: 22-13342     Document: 14-1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023    Page: 6 of 7

       6                      Opinion of the Court                22-13342

       complaint, or claim against the Secretary of the VA that “related to
       his employment” with the VA. See Wilkie, No. 8:20-cv-02557-
       KKM-JSS, at Doc. 26. Hooker did not mention anything about his
       employment in the underlying complaint. Instead, he referenced
       a 2016 injunction imposed by the VA which banned him from the
       Bay Pines facility. Based on the limited record before us, there is
       no basis for us to infer that the 2016 “ban” is related to Hooker’s
       employment—Hooker’s complaint does not state what the ban
       originated from, the defendants did not appear below or file a
       response, and Hooker’s prior appeal indicates that his employment
       terminated in 2010. Hooker I, 607 F. App’x at 919. Accordingly,
       we cannot say that the complaint fell within the scope of the initial
       2021 pre-filing injunction.
              Finally, although the August 2022 modified pre-filing
       injunction enjoins Hooker from filing new pro se actions against
       the VA “related to his employment and/or the ‘ban’ imposed by
       the VA, under any theory,” Hooker filed the underlying complaint
       in July 2022 prior to the modification of the pre-filing injunction.
       Thus, because Hooker filed the underlying complaint prior to the
       modification of the pre-filing injunction, the modified pre-filing
       injunction could not operate to bar the underlying complaint.
              Accordingly, we conclude that the district court abused its
       discretion in dismissing the complaint on the ground that it was an
USCA11 Case: 22-13342        Document: 14-1         Date Filed: 01/20/2023        Page: 7 of 7

       22-13342                  Opinion of the Court                               7

       attempted end run around the referenced pre-filing injunctions. 4
       Therefore, we vacate the dismissal and remand for further
       proceedings.5
              VACATED AND REMANDED.

       4 We express no opinion on the merits of Hooker’s complaint, and the district
       court is free on remand to dismiss on other grounds should it deem dismissal
       appropriate for other reasons.
       5 Hooker’s motion for entry of judgment due to the appellees’ failure to file a
       response brief in this Court is DENIED.