Dammuon Epps v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Human Resources ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA11 Case: 22-10857   Document: 35-1    Date Filed: 02/16/2023   Page: 1 of 6
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eleventh Circuit
    ____________________
    No. 22-10857
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ____________________
    DAMMUON EPPS,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT
    OF HUMAN RESOURCES,
    as an officer within the Alabama Children's
    Policy Council,
    ZACHARY COLLINS,
    in his official capacity as Chairman of the
    Russell County Children's Policy Council
    for the State of Alabama and Russell County,
    BARBARA COOPER,
    in her official capacity, Secretary of the
    USCA11 Case: 22-10857      Document: 35-1      Date Filed: 02/16/2023   Page: 2 of 6
    2                      Opinion of the Court                22-10857
    Department of Early Childhood Education
    for the State ofAlabama and as Chairman
    of the Alabama Childrens Policy Council,
    GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA,
    Chairman of the State Board of Human
    Resources, and as an officer within the Alabama
    Children's Policy Council,,
    ALLISON BRYARS,
    in his official capacity as Director of the Russell
    County Department of Human Resources
    and as member of the Alabama Children's
    Policy Council,
    TOM PARKER,
    in his official capacity as Administrative
    Head of the Alabama Judicial System and in his
    capacity as Vice-Chairman of the Alabama
    Children's Policy Council,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ____________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Alabama
    D.C. Docket No. 3:19-cv-00345-WKW-SMD
    ____________________
    USCA11 Case: 22-10857         Document: 35-1        Date Filed: 02/16/2023         Page: 3 of 6
    22-10857                   Opinion of the Court                               3
    Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    This appeal stems from a 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     civil action filed
    by Dammuon Epps against several Alabama government officials.
    The appeal is from the district court’s dismissal of Epps’s post-judg-
    ment motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 and 60(b). Epps is proceed-
    ing pro se on appeal. * No reversible error has been shown; we
    affirm.
    In 2019, Epps filed pro se this civil action and applied for
    leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Briefly stated, Epps sought to
    challenge as unconstitutional certain Alabama statutes and proce-
    dures governing the removal of children from a parent’s custody.
    A magistrate judge reviewed sua sponte Epps’s complaint
    pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e). The magistrate judge determined
    that Epps’s complaint constituted an impermissible “shotgun
    pleading” and instructed Epps to amend his complaint.
    Epps filed an amended complaint against these defendants
    (in their official capacities): the Governor of Alabama, the Commis-
    sioner of the Alabama Department of Human Resources, the Sec-
    retary of the Department of Early Childhood Education, the Ad-
    ministrative Head of the Alabama Judicial System, the Chairman
    * We read liberally briefs filed by pro se litigants. See Timson v. Sampson, 
    518 F.3d 870
    , 874 (11th Cir. 2008). We also construe liberally pro se pleadings. See
    Tannenbaum v. United States, 
    148 F.3d 1262
    , 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
    USCA11 Case: 22-10857      Document: 35-1      Date Filed: 02/16/2023     Page: 4 of 6
    4                       Opinion of the Court                 22-10857
    of the Russell County Children’s Policy Council, and the Director
    of the Russell County Department of Human Resources. Each de-
    fendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint on various
    grounds, including for failure to comply with federal pleading
    standards under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
    A magistrate judge prepared a report and recommendation
    (“R&R”). The magistrate judge recommended that the district
    court dismiss Epps’s amended complaint as a “textbook shotgun
    pleading” that failed to comply with federal pleading standards.
    The magistrate judge recommended further that the complaint be
    dismissed without an additional opportunity to amend given
    Epps’s failure -- despite the magistrate judge’s detailed instructions
    -- to correct the deficiencies identified in Epps’s original complaint.
    Epps filed objections to the R&R: Epps objected only to the
    portion of the R&R that recommended that he be denied a second
    opportunity to amend. In an order dated 3 January 2022, the dis-
    trict court overruled Epps’s objection, adopted the R&R, granted
    the defendants’ motions to dismiss, and dismissed with prejudice
    Epps’s amended complaint.
    Epps then filed two post-judgment motions: (1) a motion
    under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief from judgment, and (2) a mo-
    tion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 for the court to “submit findings of
    facts and conclusions of law with regard to the constitutionality of
    the application of” the challenged statutes. The district court de-
    nied both motions on 24 February 2022. This appeal followed.
    USCA11 Case: 22-10857      Document: 35-1       Date Filed: 02/16/2023     Page: 5 of 6
    22-10857                Opinion of the Court                          5
    Earlier in these appellate proceedings, we dismissed in part -
    - for lack of jurisdiction -- Epps’s appeal to the extent Epps seeks to
    challenge the district court’s 3 January 2022 final order of dismissal.
    We retain jurisdiction only to review the district court’s 24 Febru-
    ary 2022 order denying Epps’s post-judgment motions.
    Construing liberally Epps’s pro se initial appellate brief, we
    see no substantive arguments challenging the denial of Epps’s post-
    judgment motions. Epps has thus abandoned the argument that
    the district court erred in denying those motions. See Sapuppo v.
    Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 
    739 F.3d 678
    , 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (“[A]n
    appellant abandons a claim when he either makes only passing ref-
    erences to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without support-
    ing arguments and authority.”); 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)). Nor will we consider ar-
    guments about the post-judgment motions raised for the first time
    in Epps’s reply brief. See Timson, 
    518 F.3d at 874
     (“[W]e do not
    address arguments raised for the first time in a pro se litigant’s reply
    brief.”).
    Even if Epps had not abandoned arguments on appeal, we
    could not conclude that the district court abused its discretion in
    denying Epps’s post-judgment motions. Rule 52 is inapplicable to
    the district court’s dismissal order in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
    52(a)(3) (“The court is not required to state findings or conclusions
    when ruling on a motion under Rule 12 . . ..”).
    USCA11 Case: 22-10857      Document: 35-1      Date Filed: 02/16/2023     Page: 6 of 6
    6                       Opinion of the Court                 22-10857
    Epps has also demonstrated no justification that would com-
    pel Rule 60(b) relief. See Maradiaga v. United States, 
    679 F.3d 1286
    ,
    1291 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining that a party appealing the denial
    of a Rule 60(b) motion “must demonstrate a justification for relief
    so compelling that the district court was required to grant the mo-
    tion” (brackets omitted)). Epps’s Rule 60(b) motion relied chiefly
    on arguments that Epps could have -- but failed to -- raise in his
    objections to the R&R. See 
    id. at 1294
     (“It is not an abuse of dis-
    cretion for the district court to deny a motion under Rule 60(b)
    when that motion is premised upon an argument that the movant
    could have, but did not, advance before the district court entered
    judgment.”).
    The district court also acted within its discretion by dismiss-
    ing Epps’s complaint without allowing Epps another chance to
    amend his complaint. We have said that a pro se plaintiff must
    generally be given “one chance to amend the complaint before the
    district court dismisses the action with prejudice.” See Bank v. Pitt,
    
    928 F.2d 1108
    , 1112 (11th Cir. 1991), overruled in part by Wagner
    v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp., 
    314 F.3d 541
    , 542 & n.1 (11th
    Cir. 2002) (en banc) (holding that the rule in Bank does not apply
    to counseled plaintiffs).
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-10857

Filed Date: 2/16/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/16/2023