Court Opinion

ID: 9905094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 19:01:51.12326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:40.526044
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12857   Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 11/28/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                               No. 22-12857
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       JEROME ELLINGTON,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       STATE OF FLORIDA,
       CRAIG PARNELL CLENDINEN,
       Assistant State Attorney Hillsborough (Circa) 2000,
       HARRY LEE COE, III,
       The Late Former Judge/State Attorney for Hillsborough County,
       MARK F. LEWIS,
       Assistant State Attorney Hillsborough (Circa) 2000,

                                                Defendants-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 22-12857      Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 11/28/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12857

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cv-00587-MSS-AEP
                           ____________________

       Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Jerome Ellington, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se,
       appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his § 1983
       complaint against the State of Florida, Assistant State Attorneys
       Craig Clendinen and Mark Lewis, and the late Honorable Harry
       Lee Coe, III, for failure to state a claim as barred under Heck v.
       Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). On appeal, he reasserts that his state
       convictions and sentences were unconstitutional.
              While we hold the allegations of pro se litigants to “less
       stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” we
       may not “serve as de facto counsel for a party” or “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).
       An appellant forfeits any argument not briefed on appeal, made in
       passing, or raised briefly without supporting arguments or
       authority. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681–
       82 (11th Cir. 2014) (collecting cases); see also United States v.
       Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir.) (en banc).
USCA11 Case: 22-12857      Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 11/28/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       22-12857               Opinion of the Court                          3

               Here, Ellington has forfeited any argument that the district
       court improperly found the claim barred by Heck. Ellington’s
       argument is no more than a recitation of his original civil rights
       claims below. Under the most liberal construction, Ellington
       argues that the district court erred by dismissing his complaint
       because he was wrongfully prosecuted, his state convictions were
       unconstitutional, and his wrongful convictions caused him injury.
       His brief passingly mentions that this Court should hear his appeal
       “in spite of the Technical Reasons” offered below, but this is not
       sufficient to preserve a challenge to the district court’s Heck ruling.
       Accordingly, we AFFIRM.