Court Opinion

ID: 9825724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 14:00:55.77846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:23:21.616131
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10359    Document: 9-1     Date Filed: 09/01/2023    Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                               No. 23-10359
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

      In re: ERIC WATKINS,
                                                               Appellant.

                         ____________________

                Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 0:19-mc-63180-WPD
                         ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
      PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 23-10359      Document: 9-1       Date Filed: 09/01/2023      Page: 2 of 6

      2                       Opinion of the Court                   23-10359

             Eric Watkins, proceeding pro se, ﬁled a motion seeking leave
      to ﬁle a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging constitutional claims
      stemming from his suspension from a public library. Watkins al-
      leged that, on January 2, 2019, he was suspended from the library
      for thirty days following an altercation with a library supervisor.
      After the supervisor instructed him not to curse in the library, Wat-
      kins denied cursing and objected to the supervisor’s calling Wat-
      kins “sir,” stating, “my name is not sir thats a faggot and a
      madicone” [sic]. The supervisor asked Watkins to leave for the day
      for cursing at him. Watkins denied cursing, again equated “sir”
      with the two anti-gay slurs, and then took a seat at a table. About
      thirty minutes later, the supervisor returned with two police oﬃc-
      ers and ordered Watkins to leave the library and suspended him for
      thirty days. Watkins later won his appeal of the suspension. Wat-
      kins claims that the actions of the library supervisor and the two
      oﬃcers violated his constitutional rights to patronize a public li-
      brary and to free speech.
              Watkins is a serial litigant who is subject to a ﬁling injunction
      that prevents him from ﬁling any new lawsuit in the Southern Dis-
      trict of Florida without prior court approval. In a prior case, we
      aﬃrmed the ﬁling injunction so long as the court merely screened
      out the “frivolous and malicious” claims and allowed the “argua-
      ble” or “colorable” claims to go forward. See Watkins v. Dubreuil,
      820 F. App’x 940, 948–49 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks omit-
      ted). The district court screened Watkins’s proposed pleading and
      determined he did not present an arguable case. Watkins appeals.
USCA11 Case: 23-10359      Document: 9-1       Date Filed: 09/01/2023      Page: 3 of 6

      23-10359                Opinion of the Court                           3

               In general, we review de novo the legal suﬃciency of a claim,
      accepting the factual allegations in the complaint as true. See Mitch-
      ell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). Yet “[a] determi-
      nation of frivolity is best left to the district court, and we will re-
      view such determinations only for abuse of discretion.” Bilal v.
      Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001). In reviewing for frivol-
      ity, the court may consider facts outside the complaint, including
      “a litigant’s history of bringing unmeritorious litigation.” Id. at
      1350; see also Clark v. State of Ga. Pardons & Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636,
      640–41 (11th Cir. 1990). Because the district court here screened
      for frivolity and considered facts outside the complaint, we review
      for an abuse of discretion.
              “A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in
      law or fact.” Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349; see Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
      319, 325 (1989) (frivolity “embraces not only the inarguable legal
      conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation”). Moreover,
      even if a complaint legally states a claim and the facts are not fan-
      tastic, a dismissal on grounds of frivolousness might be justiﬁed in
      certain narrow circumstances, such as a “questionable claim” by a
      litigant with a “long history of bringing unmeritorious litigation”
      or where “an aﬃrmative defense would defeat the action,” such as
      immunity. Clark, 915 F.2d at 640–41 & n.2. Any ﬁnding of frivolity
      must have support in the record, though. See id. (vacating and re-
      manding where “the record in this case establishes no explanation
      for concluding that [the] case is frivolous”). The court may not
      simply “adopt[] a presumption of frivolity.” Coﬁeld v. Ala. Pub. Serv.
      Comm’n, 936 F.2d 512, 519 (11th Cir. 1991).
USCA11 Case: 23-10359      Document: 9-1     Date Filed: 09/01/2023     Page: 4 of 6

      4                       Opinion of the Court                23-10359

              Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by con-
       cluding that Watkins’s proposed pleading, dated December 31,
       2022, was without arguable merit. See Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349. Con-
       trary to Watkins’s claim, the court was permitted to consider facts
       outside the complaint, including “a litigant’s history of bringing
       unmeritorious litigation” and obvious potential defenses. Id. at
       1350; Clark, 915 F.2d at 640–41 & n.2. Citing numerous prior un-
       successful lawsuits, the court, which has the most familiarity with
       Watkins’s litigation history, found that Watkins “has a pattern of
       cursing and displaying disruptive behavior in public places, like
       singing anti-gay songs, complaining about the term ‘Sir’[,] and us-
       ing of the word ‘Faggot’,” and then suing those who confront him.
       And it reasoned that Watkins’s current pleading was consistent
       with that pattern. While Watkins disputes the court’s authority to
       rely on his litigation history, he has not challenged the court’s de-
       scription of that history or its parallels to this case.
             Not only that, but Watkins presented “questionable” claims
      that would almost certainly be defeated by the defense of qualiﬁed
      immunity. See Clark, 915 F.2d at 640–41 & n.2. Watkins sued the
      library supervisor and police oﬃcers individually for damages un-
      der § 1983, so to prevail he would have to show that the defendants
      violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Waldron v.
      Spicher, 954 F.3d 1297, 1303 (11th Cir. 2020). He cannot do so.
             The First Amendment protects the right to receive infor-
      mation, including the “right to some level of access to a public li-
      brary.” Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for Town of Morristown, 958 F.2d
USCA11 Case: 23-10359     Document: 9-1     Date Filed: 09/01/2023     Page: 5 of 6

      23-10359               Opinion of the Court                        5

      1242, 1255 (3d Cir. 1992); see Neinast v. Bd. of Trustees of Columbus
      Metro. Library, 346 F.3d 585, 591 (6th Cir. 2003). But that right of
      access does not permit patrons to engage in “conduct that would
      disrupt the quiet and peaceful library environment.” Kreimer, 958
      F.2d at 1256. Similarly, we have recognized a “constitutionally pro-
      tected liberty interest” to use public property under the ordinary
      conditions in which the property is made available to the public.
      Catron v. City of St. Petersburg, 658 F.3d 1260, 1266–67 & n.5 (11th
      Cir. 2011).
             According to Watkins’s own allegations, he was ordered to
      leave the library and suspended for thirty days only after repeatedly
      using anti-gay slurs in response to the ordinary honoriﬁc “sir” and
      ignoring the library supervisor’s request to leave the library for
      cursing. Watkins does not dispute that the library reasonably could
      view cursing or oﬀensive language as disruptive to the “quiet and
      peaceful library environment.” Kreimer, 958 F.2d at 1256. Rather,
      he mainly disputes that he ever cursed at the library supervisor. But
      as the district court observed, the supervisor reasonably could have
      viewed Watkins’s use of the anti-guy slurs as tantamount to curs-
      ing, whether directed at the supervisor or not. And it does not
      strike us as unreasonable for the oﬃcers to have acted on the su-
      pervisor’s seemingly reliable statements without ﬁrst questioning
      Watkins.
              To the extent these events violated Watkins’s constitutional
      rights, we see nothing to suggest that the contours of those rights
      were deﬁned enough to give the defendants “fair notice” that their
USCA11 Case: 23-10359       Document: 9-1       Date Filed: 09/01/2023      Page: 6 of 6

      6                        Opinion of the Court                   23-10359

       conduct violated Watkins’s constitutional rights in the speciﬁc con-
       text of this case. See Patel v. City of Madison, Ala., 959 F.3d 1330,
       1338 (11th Cir. 2020) (“[H]e must show that his right was clearly
       established in light of the speciﬁc context of the case, not as a broad
       general proposition, at the time of [the defendant’s] actions, so as
       to have provided fair notice to [the defendant] that his actions vio-
       lated [the plaintiﬀ’s] rights.”). This is not a context in which existing
       precedent has “placed the statutory or constitutional question be-
       yond debate.” Johnson v. City of Miami Beach, 18 F.4th 1267, 1274
       (11th Cir. 2021).
            For these reasons, we aﬃrm the district court’s denial of
       Watkins’s motion for leave to ﬁle a complaint.
              AFFIRMED.