Court Opinion

ID: 9964605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-30 15:01:32.519177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:36.977185
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13805   Document: 8-1     Date Filed: 04/30/2024   Page: 1 of 7

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-13805
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

      JERMAINE ALFONSO HARMON,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
      versus
      FAYETTE COUNTY SHERRIF OFFICE, et al.,

                                                          Defendants,

      DEPUTY CHIEF ANTHONY W. RHODES,
      Individual Capacity and Oﬃcial Capacity,
      MAJOR CODY BENSLAY,
      Individual Capacity and Oﬃcial Capacity,
      CAPTAIN ERIC HENKEL,
      Individual Capacity and Oﬃcial Capacity,
USCA11 Case: 23-13805    Document: 8-1     Date Filed: 04/30/2024    Page: 2 of 7

      2                     Opinion of the Court                23-13805

      JOSHUA WHITMAN,
      Sergeant (former) Individual Capacity and Oﬃcial Capacity,
      SERGEANT BRADLEY SHELTON,
      Individual Capacity and Oﬃcial Capacity,

                                                  Defendants-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                Appeal from the United States District Court
                   for the Northern District of Georgia
                   D.C. Docket No. 3:23-cv-00023-TCB
                         ____________________

      Before WILSON, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
      PER CURIAM:
              Jermaine Harmon, a pro se Georgia prisoner, appeals the
      district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his civil rights complaint
      against employees of the Fayette County Jail. He argues that the
      district court abused its discretion and disregarded the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure by dismissing the complaint without
      reaching the merits. After careful review, we affirm.
                                    I.
            In February 2023, Harmon filed a complaint against the
      Fayette County Sheriff’s Department, the Fayette County Jail, and
      several of the jail’s employees in their individual and official
USCA11 Case: 23-13805       Document: 8-1       Date Filed: 04/30/2024       Page: 3 of 7

      23-13805                 Opinion of the Court                             3

      capacities.1 Harmon’s twenty-eight-page complaint related to his
      experiences in the Fayette County Jail, where in February of 2021
      he started expressing concerns with the use of infrared thermome-
      ters. Harmon alleges that his request to have his temperature
      taken with his wrist rather than his head led the jail to house him
      in a separate part of the facility. Additional allegations include re-
      moving his bedroll to aggravate underlying health conditions, re-
      moving Harmon from his jail cell, feeding Harmon nutraloaf for
      extended periods, and preventing Harmon from receiving dental
      care or accessing legal papers until he complied with temperature
      check policies.
              A magistrate judge ordered Harmon to amend his com-
      plaint, providing several specific instructions, including directions
      to “add no more than ten pages to the form” and “clearly identify
      the action or omission of the defendant(s) that shows the defend-
      ant(s)’ responsibility for the alleged injury or deprivation.” Har-
      mon submitted an amended complaint, omitting the jail and sher-
      iff’s office as defendants but adding two additional employees as
      defendants. Harmon still did not allege facts connecting a named
      defendant to each alleged violation and improperly joined unre-
      lated claims. Harmon also continued to include more than ten

      1 Harmon listed the following individual employees in his initial complaint:

      Fayette County Jail Deputy Chief Anthony Rhodes, Major Cody Benslay, Cap-
      tain Eric Henkel, former Sergeant Joshua Whitman, Sergeant Bradley Shelton,
      Lieutenant P. McElwaney, Detention Officer Kiara Bell, Sheriff Barry Babb,
      Officer Arnold, and Officer Richardson. Harmon’s amended complaint added
      Officer Huddleton, and Officer Burgess as defendants.
USCA11 Case: 23-13805     Document: 8-1     Date Filed: 04/30/2024     Page: 4 of 7

      4                      Opinion of the Court                23-13805

      pages with the form complaint. Because his amended complaint
      did not comply with the court’s previous instructions, the magis-
      trate judge ordered Harmon to amend the complaint for a second
      time, with the same instructions, and a stipulation that he must se-
      lect claims related to the same transaction or occurrence.
              Instead of re-amending his complaint, Harmon wrote a let-
      ter to the court. The magistrate judge construed the letter as a mo-
      tion for an extension of time to amend and granted the motion. In
      response, Harmon filed a rebuttal arguing that a liberal construc-
      tion of his complaint met the notice-pleading standards. Finding
      Harmon failed to meet the requirement of alleging facts connect-
      ing named defendants to each deprivation and made several con-
      clusory claims, the magistrate judge gave Harmon “a final oppor-
      tunity to file a properly amended complaint.”
              Harmon objected and repeated his assertions: the order vio-
      lated his right to access the courts; there was no need to restrict
      him to ten pages; his complaints arose from the same series of oc-
      currences; and his complaint should be more liberally construed.
      The district court responded that it has inherent power to manage
      its docket and noted that Harmon’s complaints included several
      claims arising from various officers’ unrelated actions. Finding that
      the magistrate judge acted appropriately, the district court over-
      ruled Harmon’s objections and ordered him to file an amended
      complaint. Harmon again objected, which the district court con-
      strued as a motion for reconsideration. For the fifth time, the dis-
      trict court directed Harmon to file an amended complaint. This
USCA11 Case: 23-13805       Document: 8-1     Date Filed: 04/30/2024      Page: 5 of 7

      23-13805                Opinion of the Court                          5

      order explained that the district court had authority to dismiss ac-
      tions when plaintiffs do not comply with a lawful order. This order
      explicitly stated that Harmon was “on notice that his failure to
      comply with the Court’s order could result in the dismissal of this
      action.”
             Rather than amend his complaint, Harmon once again ob-
      jected to the order on the same grounds. The district court once
      again construed Harmon’s objection as a motion for reconsidera-
      tion, which it denied as successive. The court dismissed the case
      without prejudice under Northern District of Georgia Local Rule
      41.3(A)(2) because the court had ordered Harmon to amend his
      complaint five times, which he refused to do. Harmon timely ap-
      pealed.
                                      II.
               We review a district court’s decision to dismiss a case for
       failure to comply with a court order for abuse of discretion.
       Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th
       Cir. 2015). A district court may dismiss a complaint under its in-
       herent power to control its own docket. Id. Dismissal is generally
       not an abuse of discretion in response to a disregarded order when
       the litigant has been warned. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837
       (11th Cir. 1989).
              Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
       counseled pleadings and are construed liberally. Campbell v. Air
       Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). “Despite construc-
       tion leniency afforded pro se litigants, we nevertheless have
USCA11 Case: 23-13805      Document: 8-1      Date Filed: 04/30/2024      Page: 6 of 7

      6                       Opinion of the Court                  23-13805

      required them to conform to procedural rules.” Loren v. Sasser, 309
      F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam); see also Moon, 863 F.2d
      at 837.
             A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
      the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A plaintiff generally may bring multiple claims
      against a single party but may join multiple defendants only if the
      right asserted against them arises from “the same transaction, oc-
      currence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and if “any ques-
      tion of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the ac-
      tion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).
             Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dis-
      missing Harmon’s complaint. Even as a pro se litigant, Harmon
      was obligated to follow the court’s rules and orders. See Moon, 863
      F.2d at 837. Both his initial and first amended complaint violated
      the federal rules by alleging a variety of often unrelated claims
      against different officers. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). He also failed to
      comply with the magistrate judge’s direction to add no more than
      ten pages to the form complaint. Even under the liberal construc-
      tion Harmon is entitled to receive, his first amended complaint was
      improper. See Loren, 309 F.3d at 1304.
              Rather than re-amend the complaint as ordered, Harmon
      wrote several letters disagreeing with the magistrate judge and the
      district court. Each time, the magistrate judge and district court
      construed these letters as various motions, and their orders reiter-
      ated instructions to help Harmon file his complaint in accordance
USCA11 Case: 23-13805      Document: 8-1     Date Filed: 04/30/2024      Page: 7 of 7

      23-13805               Opinion of the Court                          7

      with procedural rules. The district court gave Harmon clear guid-
      ance and granted reasonable extensions to its deadlines. See Moon,
      863 F.3d at 837. Further, the district court explained that it had
      authority to dismiss actions for failure to comply with a lawful or-
      der and put Harmon on notice that failure to comply with its orders
      “could result in dismissal of the action.” No instructions led Har-
      mon to file a complaint that adhered to the parameters proposed
      by the district court. Ultimately, the district court did not abuse its
      discretion by dismissing Harmon’s case without prejudice.
             AFFIRMED.