Court Opinion

ID: 9396477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-22 18:01:15.266151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:17.388930
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10943   Document: 37-1    Date Filed: 05/22/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                        ____________________

                              No. 22-10943
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                        ____________________

       BRADLEY JAMES ALBERT,
                                                  Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY,
       AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
       AMERICAN STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF
       WISCONSIN,
       AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

                                               Defendants-Appellees.

                        ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10943      Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 05/22/2023     Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10943

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-01112-ELR
                          ____________________

       Before JORDAN, GRANT, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Bradley Albert, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
       order denying two pro se motions for post-judgment relief. No re-
       versible error has been shown; we aﬃrm.
              This appeal is the second time this litigation has come before
       us for review. In 2014, Albert (through his then-lawyer) ﬁled the
       underlying civil action against American Family Insurance Com-
       pany, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, American
       Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin, and American Family
       Life Insurance Company (collectively, “American Family”). Albert
       asserted claims for unlawful employment retaliation and for breach
       of contract. The parties mediated the case and, in March 2016,
       reached a settlement whereby American Family agreed to pay Al-
       bert $85,000 in exchange for a general release of all claims.
             Albert later disputed the settlement agreement. Around the
       same time, a dispute arose between Albert and his lawyer about
       attorneys’ fees: Albert ended his lawyer’s representation and pro-
       ceeded pro se.
              In Albert’s ﬁrst appeal before this Court, we aﬃrmed the dis-
       trict court’s orders (1) granting American Family’s motion to
USCA11 Case: 22-10943      Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 05/22/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       22-10943               Opinion of the Court                         3

       enforce the settlement agreement; (2) granting in part Albert’s for-
       mer lawyer’s motion to establish a charging lien; (3) denying Al-
       bert’s motion to return his case ﬁle; and (4) denying Albert’s mo-
       tion to recuse. See Albert v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 739 F. App’x 607
       (11th Cir. 2018) (unpublished).
             Following that appeal, the district court ordered the dis-
       bursement of the settlement proceeds and attorneys’ fees. The
       case was closed on 7 March 2019.
               In April 2021, Albert ﬁled pro se the motions underlying this
       appeal. Albert titled his motions this way: (1) “Motion to Reopen
       Under Rule 60(b)(6) and Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint or
       Initial Complaint” (“Motion 1”); and (2) “Motion for Leave to File
       Second Amended Complaint” (“Motion 2”). Attached to Motion 2
       was a document titled “Second Amended Complaint or Initial
       Complaint.”
              The district court denied Albert’s motions. The district
       court determined that Albert’s motion to reopen -- ﬁled almost
       three years after ﬁnal judgment was entered -- was untimely under
       Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. The district court also denied Albert leave to ﬁle
       a second amended complaint, noting that amendment under Fed.
       R. Civ. P. 15(a) is unavailable after entry of a ﬁnal judgment.
              Construing liberally Albert’s appellate brief, we see no sub-
       stantive arguments challenging the district court’s rulings denying
       Albert’s motion to reopen and denying Albert leave to ﬁle a second
       amended complaint. Albert has thus forfeited the argument that
       the district court erred in denying those motions. See United States
USCA11 Case: 22-10943      Document: 37-1       Date Filed: 05/22/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                       Opinion of the Court                 22-10943

       v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 863 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (explaining
       that an appellant forfeits an argument by failing to raise it in his
       appellate brief ); Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.
       2008) (“While we read briefs ﬁled by pro se litigants liberally, issues
       not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.”
       (citation omitted)).
               Albert argues chieﬂy that the district court erred in failing to
       construe his motions as an initial complaint actually then com-
       mencing a new civil action. In support of his argument, Albert
       points to the phrase “or Initial Complaint” in the title of Motion 1
       and in the title of the document attached to Motion 2. According
       to Albert, the district court had discretion either (1) to grant his
       motions, reopen the case, and allow him to amend his complaint,
       or (2) to treat his motions as initiating a new civil action. We reject
       that argument.
               To commence a new civil action, a plaintiﬀ must ﬁle a com-
       plaint with the court, complete proper service of process by serv-
       ing the defendants with the summons and complaint, and pay the
       applicable court ﬁling fee. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, 4; N.D. Ga. Civ. R.
       3.2 (requiring advance payment of court ﬁling fees). Despite his
       pro se status, Albert was required to comply with these procedural
       requirements. See Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir.
       2007).
              Even if we assume that such titles might count for some-
       thing, that Albert included the phrase “or Initial Complaint” in the
       title of his motion and in the title of his proposed amended
USCA11 Case: 22-10943      Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 05/22/2023     Page: 5 of 5

       22-10943               Opinion of the Court                         5

       complaint is insuﬃcient to commence a new civil action. The Fed-
       eral Rules of Civil Procedure also make clear that a motion and a
       pleading are two distinct categories of documents: a motion cannot
       be construed, in the alternative, as an initial pleading. See Fed. R.
       Civ. P. 7.
              The district court committed no error by failing to treat Al-
       bert’s motions as a ﬁnished initial complaint in a new civil action.
       Because Albert’s motions really constituted no initial complaint,
       we reject Albert’s contention that the district court erred in failing
       to enter a default judgment against American Family.
             AFFIRMED.