Court Opinion

ID: 9957929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 18:01:05.492641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:32.336331
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12513    Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 04/05/2024   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12513
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       ANTHONY ITALO PROVITOLA,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       DENNIS L. COMER,
       FRANK A. FORD, JR.,

                                                 Defendants-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 6:20-cv-00862-PGB-DCI
USCA11 Case: 22-12513     Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 04/05/2024    Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-12513

                            ____________________

       Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Anthony Provitola, a Florida attorney proceeding pro se,
       filed suit against his neighbor, Dennis Comer, and his neighbor’s
       attorney, Frank Ford, Jr. The district court struck Provitola’s
       second amended complaint, denied him leave to amend his
       complaint, and declined to reconsider those two decisions. We
       affirm.
               Provitola brought six counts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, each
       alleging a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of
       due process. The district court dismissed the original complaint
       without prejudice as a shotgun pleading. After Provitola filed an
       amended complaint, the court dismissed that complaint with
       prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failing to
       state a claim. This Court affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject-
       matter jurisdiction and remanded for the limited purpose of
       correcting the judgment to reflect a dismissal without prejudice.
       Provitola v. Comer, No. 21-10878, 2022 WL 823582 (11th Cir. Mar.
       18, 2022).
             Before the district court could correct the disposition,
       Provitola filed a second amended complaint. The district court
       struck that complaint for violating both Federal Rule of Civil
       Procedure 15(a)(2) and the court’s case management and
       scheduling order. It then followed this Court’s direction and
USCA11 Case: 22-12513         Document: 37-1         Date Filed: 04/05/2024          Page: 3 of 5

       22-12513                   Opinion of the Court                                 3

       dismissed the first amended complaint without prejudice.
       Provitola moved the court to reconsider that order, or in the
       alternative, for leave to replead and file the second amended
       complaint. The district court denied the motion, noting that any
       amendment to the complaint would be futile for the same reasons
       that had been evident for the first amended complaint. Provitola
       appealed. 1
               Provitola now argues that the district court failed to obey
       our mandate from the prior appeal when it struck the second
       amended complaint and denied Provitola leave to amend. We
       disagree; the district court complied with the mandate by
       correcting the appealed judgment to reflect a dismissal without
       prejudice. Although a district court may not deviate from a
       mandate issued by this Court, or grant any further relief or review,
       it may still address any issues not disposed of on appeal. Piambino
       v. Bailey, 757 F.2d 1112, 1119 (11th Cir. 1985). Thus, because our
       opinion was silent on whether Provitola was entitled to amend his
       complaint, the district court was free to address that issue.
             The district court likewise did not err by striking the
       (attempted) second amended complaint—a decision we review for

       1 Comer and Ford argue that we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, a
       question that we consider de novo. Nationwide Mut. Ins. v. Barrow, 29 F.4th
       1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2022). That is incorrect. We have jurisdiction here
       because the denial of leave to amend is a final order if it follows the dismissal
       of the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Czeremcha v. Int’l Ass’n of
       Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 724 F.2d 1552, 1555 (11th Cir. 1984).
USCA11 Case: 22-12513      Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 04/05/2024     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-12513

       abuse of discretion. Corsello v. Lincare, Inc., 428 F.3d 1008, 1012
       (11th Cir. 2005). A plaintiff who has amended his complaint once
       may amend again only with either the defendants’ written consent
       or the court’s leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Here, Provitola had
       already amended his complaint once and sought neither the
       defendants’ consent nor the court’s leave before filing yet another
       amended complaint.          Striking the improperly attempted
       amendment was thus appropriate. The constraints on successive
       amendments are not lessened after a successful appeal. See Wagner
       v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp., 314 F.3d 541, 542–44 (11th Cir.
       2002) (en banc).
              Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by
       denying Provitola leave to amend his complaint. A district court
       may deny leave to amend if the complaint as amended would still
       be subject to dismissal. Hall v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 367 F.3d 1255,
       1262–63 (11th Cir. 2004). Here, Provitola’s second amended
       complaint would still be subject to dismissal. Provitola’s § 1983
       claims—even as amended—rest entirely on the conclusory
       allegation that the defendants “jointly engaged” with the state
       court judges. This naked assertion fails to plausibly allege that the
       defendants acted under color of state law, a statutory requirement.
       See Harvey v. Harvey, 949 F.2d 1127, 1130 (11th Cir. 1992). Because
       Provitola’s second amended complaint would still be subject to
USCA11 Case: 22-12513         Document: 37-1         Date Filed: 04/05/2024          Page: 5 of 5

       22-12513                   Opinion of the Court                                 5

       dismissal for failure to plead a claim, amendment would be futile,
       and the district court properly denied leave to amend.2
               AFFIRMED.3

       2 Provitola argues that the district court improperly relied on the Rooker–
       Feldman doctrine, that none of the issues raised in this case are precluded by
       collateral estoppel or res judicata, and that his § 1983 action is “personal” to
       him. Provitola’s argument concerning the court’s use of the Rooker–Feldman
       doctrine is precluded by the law of the case doctrine. See Luckey v. Miller, 929
       F.2d 618, 621 (11th Cir. 1991). And his other arguments are not properly
       before us because the district court’s orders did not rely on collateral estoppel,
       res judicata, or whether Provitola’s action is “personal” to him. See Clark v.
       Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 609 (11th Cir. 1991).
       3 We DENY Comer and Ford’s motion for sanctions.