Court Opinion

ID: 9894870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 15:01:06.655654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:53.657412
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11089   Document: 20-1    Date Filed: 11/03/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-11089
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       DAVID LAMARR LOVE,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       ACTING SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
       SECURITY,
       et al.,

                                                          Defendants,

       INSPECTOR MICHAEL MORALES,
       Federal Protective Service,
       JOHN DOE,
USCA11 Case: 23-11089      Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 11/03/2023     Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11089

       Security Oﬃcer, Federal Protective Service,

                                                      Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Georgia
                   D.C. Docket No. 4:20-cv-00083-RSB-CLR
                           ____________________

       Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               David Love, a pro se litigant and member of the Yamassee
       Indian Tribe of Seminoles in South Carolina, appeals the dismissal
       of his amended complaint for failure to state a claim. He sued Mi-
       chael Morales, a federal agent, for questioning whether Love’s
       tribal ID was fraudulent and seizing it pending an investigation.
       The government moves for summary affirmance.
              Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of
       the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is-
       sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,”
       or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a mat-
       ter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the
       out-come of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the
       appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158,
USCA11 Case: 23-11089      Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 11/03/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       23-11089               Opinion of the Court                          3

       1161-62 (5th Cir. 1969). A motion for summary affirmance post-
       pones the due date for the filing of any remaining brief until we
       rule on the motion. 11th Cir. R. 31-1(c).
               We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de
       novo, accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true, and
       construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Boyd v.
       Warden, Holman Corr. Facility, 856 F.3d 853, 863-64 (11th Cir. 2017).
       To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain suffi-
       cient factual allegations to state a claim for relief that is plausible
       on its face. Id.
              An appellant abandons a claim when he makes only passing
       references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without sup-
       porting arguments and authority. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridan
       Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014). A party seeking to raise
       a claim or issue on appeal must plainly and prominently do so by,
       for example, devoting a discrete, substantial portion of his argu-
       mentation to that issue. Id. “[S]imply stating that an issue exists,
       without further argument or discussion, constitutes abandonment
       of that issue and precludes our considering the issue on appeal.”
       Singh v. United States, 561 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009).
             In applying the preceding principles, we will hold pro se
       pleadings to a less stringent standard and will liberally construe
       them. Campbell v. Air Jam., Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014).
       But we will not “serve as de facto counsel for a party [or] rewrite an
       otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Id. at
       1168-69. In addition, all litigants in federal court—pro se or
USCA11 Case: 23-11089       Document: 20-1       Date Filed: 11/03/2023      Page: 4 of 5

       4                       Opinion of the Court                    23-11089

       counseled—are required to comply with the applicable procedural
       rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007). Gen-
       erally, we do not consider arguments raised for the first time on
       appeal in a civil case. Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385
       F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004). We have permitted issues to be
       raised for the first time on appeal under five circumstances: (1) the
       issue involves a pure question of law and refusal to consider it
       would result in a miscarriage of justice; (2) the appellant had no
       opportunity to raise his objection to an order at the district court
       level; (3) the interest of substantial justice is at stake; (4) where res-
       olution is beyond any doubt; and (5) the issue presents significant
       questions of general impact or great public concern. Id. at 1332. We
       have also stated that we review an argument raised for the first
       time on appeal for plain error. See Ruiz v. Wing, 991 F.3d 1130, 1141
       (11th Cir. 2021).
               Summary affirmance is warranted here because Love has
       abandoned on appeal any challenge to the district court’s dismissal
       of his amended complaint. In his initial brief on appeal, Love made
       only passing reference to the district court’s reasons for dismissing
       his complaint. Although he cites 18 U.S.C. § 1983 as providing a
       cause of action against Officer Morales, that statute provides a
       cause of action against state officers, not federal officers. He also
       cites the rule of law from Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.
       Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971), which recognizes a
       cause of action against federal officers for violations of the Fourth
       Amendment. But he makes no argument connecting his com-
       plaints with Bivens or arguing that Bivens should be extended to the
USCA11 Case: 23-11089       Document: 20-1       Date Filed: 11/03/2023      Page: 5 of 5

       23-11089                Opinion of the Court                            5

       facts of his case. See Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1802 (2022)(ques-
       tioning whether Bivens may be extended to new circumstances).
       He also fails to provide any reasoning or argument as to how Mo-
       rales’s alleged actions violated any of his constitutional rights.
       Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681.
              Due to his failure to challenge the court’s reasoning, there is
       no substantial question about the outcome of the appeal, and sum-
       mary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d
       at 1162.
           Accordingly, we GRANT the government’s motion for
       summary affirmance and AFFIRM the district court.