Court Opinion

ID: 9890790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-16 15:01:08.334028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:23.644886
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12651    Document: 39-1     Date Filed: 10/16/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12651
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       JAMES LEE BALLARD,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       JOHN LYON BROLING,
       Assistant Regional Counselor,
       CANDACE KAYE BROWER,
       Regional Counselor,
       DAVID KREIDER,
       Alachua County Judge,

                                                 Defendants-Appellees.

                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12651      Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  22-12651

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-00104-AW-MJF
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              State pretrial detainee James Lee Ballard, proceeding pro se,
       appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil
       rights complaint. After review, we affirm.
                                 I.     BACKGROUND
              On May 10, 2022, Ballard sued Defendant-Appellees John
       Lyon Broling, Candace Kaye Brower, and Judge David Kreider for
       violating his constitutional rights under § 1983. Broling was Bal-
       lard’s appointed counsel in his criminal prosecution, Brower was
       regional defense counsel, and Judge Kreider was the presiding state
       judge. Ballard alleged that Broling retaliated against Ballard, result-
       ing in malicious prosecution, and Brower and Judge Kreider know-
       ingly enabled Broling’s actions, participating in a conspiracy to vi-
       olate Ballard’s constitutional rights. Ballard also moved to proceed
       in forma pauperis. A magistrate judge reviewed the complaint un-
       der 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and issued a report and recommendation
       (R&R).
USCA11 Case: 22-12651        Document: 39-1         Date Filed: 10/16/2023           Page: 3 of 4

       22-12651                  Opinion of the Court                                 3

               The magistrate judge concluded that Ballard’s complaint
       should be dismissed 1) on Younger1 abstention grounds; 2) under
       § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii) for failure to state a claim upon which
       relief may be granted because the claims seek monetary damages
       against defendants who are immune from such relief; and 3) for
       abuse of the judicial process for Ballard’s failure to disclose his liti-
       gation history on his complaint form. The district court dismissed
       Ballard’s complaint without prejudice for abuse of the judicial pro-
       cess, adopting the R&R to the extent it was consistent with the or-
       der. The district court did not reach a decision on the merits for
       the first two issues. Ballard timely appealed.
                                     II.     DISCUSSION
              We review sanctions imposed pursuant to § 1915 under an
       abuse of discretion standard. See Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610,
       612 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). Although pro se pleadings may
       be liberally construed, a plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse mis-
       takes regarding procedural rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S.
       106, 113 (1993). A dismissal without prejudice will generally not be
       held as an abuse of discretion because the affected party retains the
       opportunity to refile. See Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 720
       F.2d 1495, 1499 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).

       1 Federal courts will not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions except un-

       der extraordinary circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971).
USCA11 Case: 22-12651       Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023      Page: 4 of 4

       4                       Opinion of the Court                   22-12651

              The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
       Ballard’s claim without prejudice. Ballard used a complaint form,
       and under “Prior Litigation,” it asked the following question:
              B.     Have you filed other lawsuits in either state or federal
                     court dealing with the same facts or issue involved in
                     this case?
       In response to this question, Ballard replied “no,” stating “[t]his is
       the same criminal case but separate issues and defendants.”
               Contrary to Ballard’s response, the R&R noted that since
       January 4, 2022, Ballard had filed six civil rights lawsuits in the
       Northern District of Florida, each with issues and facts that over-
       lapped with this case. Regardless of whether his response to the
       question was knowing or intentional, Ballard failed to accurately
       disclose his other litigation—and failed to do so under oath. The
       district court was entitled to find this failure an abuse of the judicial
       process. Furthermore, because the district court dismissed Bal-
       lard’s complaint without prejudice, the dismissal was not an abuse
       of discretion. See Dynes, 720 F.2d at 1499.
                                  III.   CONCLUSION
              The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
       Ballard’s complaint without prejudice.
              AFFIRMED.