Court Opinion

ID: 9959478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-11 19:01:01.365364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:19.610588
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12437   Document: 26-1    Date Filed: 04/11/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-12437
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       MACEO WILLIAMS,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       JUDGE BRIAN C. WIMES, JR.,
       CIA,
       JOHN DOE,
       MARTA,
       JANE DOE,
       SALVATION ARMY,
       CHANDRA TRIMBTE,

                                               Defendants-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 23-12437      Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 04/11/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-12437

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-01457-VMC
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Maceo Williams, proceeding pro se, appeals the District
       Court’s dismissal of his complaint with prejudice. The complaint
       invoked the court’s federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
       to allege a First Amendment free exercise claim against a federal
       district judge and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the
       court’s supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, to allege a state
       law tort claim against the Salvation Army, Chandra Trimbte, and
       several John and Jane Does. The District Court dismissed the fed-
       eral question claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),
       and the supplemental claim because it believed that claim more
       properly belonged in state court.
              Williams now appeals the judgment. We aﬃrm the dismis-
       sal of the § 1331 claims and § 1367 claim and instruct the District
       Court on receipt of our mandate to revise the judgment dismissing
       the § 1367 claim without prejudice.
             We aﬃrm the District Court’s judgment regarding the
       § 1331 claims because they are frivolous; thus, the court did not
       abuse its discretion in dismissing them. The federal claims are
USCA11 Case: 23-12437      Document: 26-1       Date Filed: 04/11/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       23-12437                Opinion of the Court                          3

       conclusory. They are that the district judge and the CIA combined
       to destroy his religious journey (which the complaint does not de-
       scribe) through “intense anti-Semitic Satanism.” They intended to
       “stop[ him] from praying to Jesus Christ, Adonai, Hashem, or any
       [O]thodox [J]ewish God name, preventing him from exercising his
       First Amendment rights. The complaint is devoid of conduct to
       that end.
              As for Williams’s state law tort claim, the District Court was
       within its discretion to dismiss it once the federal claims were dis-
       missed. See Silas v. Sheriﬀ of Broward Cnty., 55 F.4th 863, 866 (11th
       Cir. 2022) (“A district court . . . will rarely err by declining supple-
       mental jurisdiction after the federal claims that supported its juris-
       diction are dismissed.”). We instruct the District Court on receipt
       of our mandate to amend its judgment to reﬂect the dismissal of
       those claims without prejudice.
             AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions to enter
       dismissal without prejudice.