Court Opinion

ID: 9943373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 15:01:12.026339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:56.984930
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12960   Document: 42-1    Date Filed: 02/23/2024   Page: 1 of 10

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                               No. 22-12960
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

        BERNIE QUARTERMAN,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        CITY OF WALTHOURVILLE, GEORGIA,
        MAYOR DAISY S. PRAY,
        MELISSA JONES,
        JEFFERY ARNOLD,
        ANDREW JOHNSON,
        In Their Individual Capacities,

                                                Defendants-Appellees.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12960      Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 02/23/2024     Page: 2 of 10

        2                      Opinion of the Court                22-12960

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Georgia
                   D.C. Docket No. 4:20-cv-00006-WTM-BWC
                            ____________________

        Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                Bernie Quarterman, former Chief of Police for the City of
        Walthourville, Georgia (the “City”), proceeding pro se, appeals the
        district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his pro se fifth amended
        complaint alleging claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
        1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
        various Fourteenth Amendment violations brought under 42
        U.S.C. § 1983. These claims were asserted against former City
        Mayor Daisy S. Pray, former City Clerk Melissa Jones, and former
        City attorneys Jeffrey Arnold and Andrew Johnson, all in their offi-
        cial and individual capacities, as well as against the City itself.
              After careful consideration, we AFFIRM the district court’s
        order dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
                                          I
              We first address the Title VII, FLSA, and § 1983 claims that
        Quarterman brought against defendants Pray, Jones, Arnold, and
        Johnson in their official capacities. The district court dismissed
USCA11 Case: 22-12960      Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 02/23/2024      Page: 3 of 10

        22-12960                Opinion of the Court                          3

        these claims because they were redundant of Quarterman’s claims
        against the City.
                We need not reach the merits here because Quarterman
        failed to challenge this dismissal on appeal and has therefore aban-
        doned the claims.
                Generally, issues not raised in an initial brief are considered
        abandoned and will not be addressed absent extraordinary circum-
        stances. Anthony v. Georgia, 69 F.4th 796, 807 (11th Cir. 2023). Alt-
        hough allegations of a pro se complaint are liberally construed,
        “this leniency does not give a court license to serve as de facto coun-
        sel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order
        to sustain an action.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165,
        1168–69 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). Likewise, this
        leniency toward pro se parties does not alter the general principle
        that issues not raised below are generally not considered on appeal.
        Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
        And while this rule is not “ironclad,” we will generally only con-
        sider exercising our discretion to consider a newly-raised or aban-
        doned issue when
               (1) the issue involves a pure question of law and re-
               fusal to consider it would result in a miscarriage of
               justice; (2) the party lacked an opportunity to raise
               the issue at the district court level; (3) the interest of
               substantial justice is at stake; (4) the proper resolution
               is beyond any doubt; or (5) the issue presents signiﬁ-
               cant questions of general impact or great public con-
               cern.
USCA11 Case: 22-12960       Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 02/23/2024      Page: 4 of 10

        4                       Opinion of the Court                    22-12960

        United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir. 2022) (citing
        Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1332 (11th
        Cir. 2004)).
               By failing to challenge on appeal the district court’s dismissal
        of his Title VII, FLSA, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 official-capacity claims
        against Pray, Jones, Arnold, and Johnson, Quarterman has aban-
        doned any such challenges. Accordingly, we affirm the district
        court’s dismissal of those claims.
                                            II
                We next address the individual-capacity Title VII retaliation
        claims against Pray, Jones, Arnold, and Johnson and the Title VII
        retaliation claim against the City. The district court dismissed
        these claims because individual-capacity claims are not allowed un-
        der Title VII.
               But we need not reach the merits of Quarterman’s individ-
        ual-capacity Title VII retaliation claims against Pray, Jones, Arnold,
        and Johnson because he abandoned them on appeal. He failed to
        (1) respond to the defendants’ arguments related to Title VII indi-
        vidual liability in the district court, and (2) argue in his initial brief
        on appeal that the defendants are individually liable. Anthony, 69
        F.4th at 807.
USCA11 Case: 22-12960         Document: 42-1        Date Filed: 02/23/2024        Page: 5 of 10

        22-12960                  Opinion of the Court                               5

              Quarterman similarly abandoned his Title VII retaliation
        claim brought against the City because he conceded below that he
        intended for it to be cast as an 18 U.S.C. § 1513 claim. 1
               Accordingly, we affirm as to these issues.
                                             III
               Quarterman next appeals the dismissal of his individual-ca-
        pacity FLSA claims and his FLSA overtime and retaliation claims
        brought against the City.
                Under the FLSA, to state a valid unpaid-overtime claim
        against a covered employer, an employee bears the initial burden
        of showing that (1) he worked unpaid overtime, and (2) his em-
        ployer knew or should have known of the overtime work. Bailey
        v. TitleMax of Georgia, Inc., 776 F.3d 797, 801 (11th Cir. 2015). To
        state a valid retaliation claim under the FLSA against a covered em-
        ployer, an employee bears the initial burden of establishing a prima
        facie case of FLSA retaliation by showing that (1) he engaged in
        activity protected under the act, (2) he subsequently suffered ad-
        verse action by his employer, and (3) a causal connection existed
        between the protected activity and the adverse employment ac-
        tion. Smith v. Haynes & Haynes P.C., 940 F.3d 635, 648 (11th Cir.

        1 To the extent that Quarterman, by making new arguments in his brief on

        appeal, asks us to consider those new arguments about this claim, we decline.
        Although we have the discretion to consider issues raised for the first time on
        appeal in certain circumstances, here, Quarterman had more than ample op-
        portunity in the district court to make the arguments and chose not to do so.
        See Tannenbaum, 148 F.3d at 1263.
USCA11 Case: 22-12960       Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 02/23/2024      Page: 6 of 10

        6                       Opinion of the Court                  22-12960

        2019). For liability-establishing purposes, “a public official sued in
        his individual capacity is not an ‘employer’ subject to individual li-
        ability under the FLSA.” Austin v. Glynn Cnty., Georgia, 80 F.4th
        1342, 1346 (11th Cir. 2023) (quotation marks omitted).
               The FLSA also, in part, makes it unlawful “to discharge or in
        any manner discriminate against any employee because such em-
        ployee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be insti-
        tuted any proceeding under or related to [Chapter 8 of the FLSA].”
        29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3).
               Under Chapter 15 of Title 29 of the United States Code, the
        Occupational Safety and Health (“OSH”) Act, in part, makes it un-
        lawful to “discharge or in any manner discriminate against any em-
        ployee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted
        or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to
        [Chapter 15 of the OSH Act].” 29 U.S.C. § 660(c)(1).
                                           A
               Here, as an initial matter, Quarterman has abandoned his
        individual-capacity FLSA overtime and retaliation claims against
        Jones, Arnold, and Johnson by failing to argue in his initial brief that
        they were individually liable under the FLSA. Accordingly, we af-
        firm the district court’s dismissal of Quarterman’s
USCA11 Case: 22-12960        Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 02/23/2024       Page: 7 of 10

        22-12960                 Opinion of the Court                             7

        individual-capacity FLSA overtime and retaliation claims against
        Jones, Arnold, and Johnson.2
                Quarterman did argue on appeal that defendant Pray should
        be held individually liable because she qualified as an “employer”
        under the FLSA. But Pray is correct that she is not an employer
        within the meaning of the FLSA. We recently clarified that public
        officials—such as Pray, the City’s former mayor—sued in their in-
        dividual capacities are not employers within the meaning of the
        FLSA such that they may be subject to individual liability. Austin,
        80 F.4th at 1346. We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal
        of this claim.
                                             B
              Quarterman’s claims for FLSA overtime and retaliation
        against the City similarly fail.
               As to his FLSA overtime claim, the City is correct that Quar-
        terman’s fifth amended complaint contained no more than unsub-
        stantiated conclusions insufficient to state a valid FLSA overtime
        claim. In his fifth amended complaint, he simply states that the
        City is (1) an employer, (2) non-exempt under the FLSA, (3) failed
        to pay overtime, and (4) failed to keep timesheets of actual hours
        worked, which he asserted was in bad faith. He neither alleged that

        2 Jones, Arnold, and Johnson argue on appeal that they are not employers un-

        der the FLSA and thus not subject to individual liability. We need not reach
        the merits of this argument.
USCA11 Case: 22-12960         Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 02/23/2024         Page: 8 of 10

        8                          Opinion of the Court                       22-12960

        he had worked overtime, nor did he attach any factual support such
        that those attachments may have permitted him to state a plausible
        FLSA overtime claim and thus survive a motion to dismiss. Absent
        further factual enhancement, his FLSA overtime claim in his fifth
        amended complaint did not plausibly state a claim sufficient to sur-
        vive a motion to dismiss. 3
                Quarterman’s FLSA retaliation claim also fails. Even liber-
        ally construing this claim, it fails to state a plausible claim of FLSA
        retaliation because the act of filing an OSH Act whistleblower com-
        plaint is not a protected activity under the FLSA. 29 U.S.C.
        § 215(a)(3); 29 U.S.C. § 660(c)(1).
             Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his
        FLSA overtime and retaliation claims.
                                              IV
                Finally, we address Quarterman’s due process claim.
               The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment pro-
        vides that no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or prop-
        erty, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

        3 Quarterman argues that his pleadings should be liberally construed and held

        to a less stringent standard because he is pro se. He is correct that this is how
        we construe pro se pleadings. But pro se pleadings cannot escape the require-
        ments set out in Twombly and Iqbal. All litigants, whether counseled or pro se,
        must provide enough factual content to allow a district court to draw a rea-
        sonable inference that the defendant is plausibly liable for the alleged miscon-
        duct. Marquez v. Amazon.com, 69 F.4th 1262, 1269 (11th Cir. 2023).
USCA11 Case: 22-12960        Document: 42-1        Date Filed: 02/23/2024       Page: 9 of 10

        22-12960                 Opinion of the Court                              9

        Section 1983 holds any person acting under color of state law liable
        for depriving another person of a federal right. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
               To bring a due process claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff
        must establish “(1) deprivation of a constitutionally-protected lib-
        erty or property interest; (2) state action; and (3) constitution-
        ally-inadequate process.” Resnick v. KrunchCash, LLC, 34 F.4th 1028,
        1035 (11th Cir. 2022) (quotation marks omitted). As to the third
        element, assuming a plaintiff has shown a deprivation of some right
        protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amend-
        ment, we look “to whether the available state procedures were ad-
        equate to correct the alleged procedural deficiencies.” Cotton v.
        Jackson, 216 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir. 2000). “If adequate state
        remedies were available but the plaintiff failed to take advantage of
        them, the plaintiff cannot rely on that failure to claim that the state
        deprived him of procedural due process.” Id.
               Georgia law provides that, if no remedy at law exists and a
        party has a right to the performance of an act, the party is entitled
        to seek a writ of mandamus through the state courts. O.C.G.A. §
        9-6-20. A writ of mandamus is an adequate remedy to protect a
        plaintiff’s right to have a name-clearing hearing. Cotton, 216 F.3d
        at 1332–33.
               Quarterman failed to sufficiently allege in his fifth amended
        complaint that he had no adequate state remedy to address the
        City’s alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations. 4 For this reason,

        4 Once again, Quarterman appears to      raise new arguments on appeal—
        namely, a substantive due process claim. To the extent that by including this
USCA11 Case: 22-12960       Document: 42-1        Date Filed: 02/23/2024        Page: 10 of 10

        10                       Opinion of the Court                     22-12960

        we decline to reach the merits of the parties’ various arguments on
        appeal about whether Quarterman did or did not have constitu-
        tionally-protected liberty or property interests. Under Georgia
        law, a writ of mandamus was available to Quarterman, and such a
        remedy was adequate to protect his constitutional rights. O.C.G.A.
        § 9-6-20; Cotton, 216 F.3d at 1332–33. Thus, even if the City de-
        prived Quarterman of his constitutional rights, he was entitled to
        seek a writ of mandamus to require a new hearing to remedy any
        constitutional deprivations. His failure to seek such a state court
        remedy barred his § 1983 claims, and the district court did not err
        in dismissing those claims for failure to state a claim. See Resnick,
        34 F.4th at 1035.
               For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the district
        court’s dismissal with prejudice of Quarterman’s fifth amended
        complaint.
               AFFIRMED.

        in his initial brief, Quarterman requests that we consider this new argument,
        we decline to do so. He had ample opportunity in the district court to make
        the argument he now makes, and no circumstances warrant us considering it
        for the first time on appeal. See Campbell, 26 F.4th at 873.