Court Opinion

ID: 9395799
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 17:00:56.406098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:11.392689
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12150    Document: 53-1     Date Filed: 05/18/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12150
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       GLENN S. RHODES,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       SUPERIOR JUDGE DANIEL CRAIG,
       Individual and Oﬃcial Capacity,
       ADAM LAND,
       Defense Lawyer, Individual and Oﬃcial Capacity,
       BARBARA CLARIDGE,

                        Plaintiﬀ lawyer, Individual and Oﬃcial Capacity,

       SHAWN HAMMOND,
USCA11 Case: 22-12150     Document: 53-1     Date Filed: 05/18/2023    Page: 2 of 3

       2                     Opinion of the Court                22-12150

                          Plaintiﬀ lawyer, Individual and Oﬃcial Capacity
                                                    Defendants-Appellees.

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-00127-JRH-BKE
                          ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and GRANT, Cir-
       cuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Glenn Rhodes appeals pro se the dismissal of his complaint
       against a Georgia superior court judge, Daniel Craig; Rhodes’s for-
       mer divorce attorneys, Barbara Claridge and Shawn Hammond;
       and his ex-wife’s divorce attorney, Adam Land. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
       The complaint alleged that the defendants violated Rhodes’s civil
       and constitutional rights during his divorce proceedings in state
       court. We affirm.
              Rhodes argues that the district court erred by dismissing his
       claims against Hammond as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
       but we need not address that argument because we can affirm on
       the alternative ground stated by the district court. Before we will
       reverse a “judgment that is based on multiple, independent
       grounds, an appellant must convince us that every stated ground
       for the judgment against him is incorrect.” Sapuppo v. Allstate
USCA11 Case: 22-12150       Document: 53-1      Date Filed: 05/18/2023      Page: 3 of 3

       22-12150                Opinion of the Court                           3

       Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). If the “appellant
       fails to challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds on which
       the district court based its judgment, he is deemed to have aban-
       doned any challenge of that ground . . . .” Id. The district court
       ruled alternatively that the complaint failed to state a claim against
       Hammond under section 1983 because Rhodes “failed to allege an-
       ything that would transform [] Hammond from a private individual
       to a state actor.” Rhodes failed to challenge this alternative ruling
       in his initial brief. We affirm on that ground. Id.
              The district court dismissed the complaint against Judge
       Craig and attorneys Land and Claridge for insufficient service of
       process, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5), and Rhodes failed to challenge that
       ruling in his initial brief or otherwise argue that he properly served
       these individuals. So he has abandoned any challenge of that
       ground for dismissal too. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680. And his re-
       maining arguments are outside the scope of this appeal.
              We AFFIRM the dismissal of Rhodes’s complaint and
       DENY his motion to review residual impact from miscarriages of
       justice.