Case: 17-13851 Date Filed: 12/04/2018 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-13851
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-00360-CG-C
ANN MITCHELL,
personal representative of
the estate of Ray Anson Mitchell,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF MOBILE,
STEVEN CHANDLER,
MIRANDA WILSON,
Defendants-Appellees,
PATRICK PALMER,
Defendant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(December 4, 2018)
Case: 17-13851 Date Filed: 12/04/2018 Page: 2 of 5
Before WILSON, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Ann Mitchell, proceeding pro se on behalf of the estate
of her late son, Ray Anson Mitchell, appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of Defendants Steven Chandler, Miranda Wilson, and
the City of Mobile, Alabama. On appeal, she contends she was prejudiced by the
negligence of her trial attorneys. In addition, she identifies, but fails to develop, a
number of issues related to the district court’s order granting summary judgment.
After review,1 we affirm.
I. DISCUSSION
A. Attorney Negligence
We generally do not consider issues that were not first raised before the
district court. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co.,
385 F.3d 1324, 1331–32
(11th Cir. 2004). Further, we have recognized that “there is no constitutional or
statutory right to effective assistance of counsel [i]n a civil case.” Mekdeci v.
Merrell Nat’l Labs.,
711 F.2d 1510, 1522 (11th Cir. 1983) (quotation omitted). If
a party has been prejudiced by the negligent performance of her attorney in a civil
1
“We review a district court order granting summary judgment de novo, viewing the
evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party.” Battle v. Bd. of Regents,
468 F.3d 755, 759 (11th Cir. 2006).
2
Case: 17-13851 Date Filed: 12/04/2018 Page: 3 of 5
case, there is no relief available on appeal; rather, the party’s remedy is to bring a
malpractice suit against the attorney.
Id. at 1523.
Mitchell did not raise in the district court the issue of whether her attorneys’
negligent performance resulted in summary judgment. Thus, that issue has been
waived on appeal. See Access Now,
Inc., 385 F.3d at 1331–32. Further, because
this is a civil case, Mitchell cannot seek relief on appeal for the allegedly
ineffective assistance of her trial counsel. See
Mekdeci, 711 F.2d at 1523.
B. Remaining Issues
Although we read briefs filed by pro-se litigants liberally, issues not raised
or developed in the opening brief are considered abandoned, and arguments raised
for the first time in a reply brief will not be addressed. Timson v. Sampson,
518
F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). A party fails to adequately brief an issue when she
raises it in a perfunctory manner, without supporting arguments and authority.
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.,
739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014).
Further, to obtain reversal of a judgment that is based on multiple, independent
grounds, an appellant must challenge every stated ground, or we will affirm. See
Id. at 680.
Mitchell has abandoned all issues stemming from the district court’s grant of
summary judgment by failing to develop any legal arguments in her opening brief.
3
Case: 17-13851 Date Filed: 12/04/2018 Page: 4 of 5
The section of Appellant’s Brief titled “Argument/Citations of Authority” states in
its entirety:
In showing due diligence, it is the responsibility of the appellant to
show just cause with reciprocity within all states. Therefore, in the
case of Ray Anson Mitchell, a clinically diagnosed mentally ill patient
under the court-ordered care of Alta Pointe, the state neither insured
legal covering of his protected class from the excessive use of force
from Mobile County Alabama law enforcement. Discrimination
against the mentally ill with regards to appropriate agency training
and breaches to the police department’s code of ethics were evident.
(Exhibit J- Alabama Code Title 22-50-11 (1) (16) Health, Mental
Health, and Environmental Control). It is unlawful to disrespect the
constitutional, legislative, executive, judicial and state laws with
respect to justice. It is only right to quote the laws, rules and rights
mandated by the Alabama code. (Exhibit K – Alabama Code 22-56-4
(b) (3) (9) (11) (13) Title Health, Mental Health, and Environmental
Control)
Br. of Appellant at 9. Even viewed liberally, Mitchell fails to provide more than a
perfunctory and conclusory assertion that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment. See
Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681.
Moreover, Mitchell fails to address the grounds on which the district court’s
decision was based. For example, the district court held—among other things—
that the officers’ use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the
circumstances, regardless of whether the officers violated departmental policy
earlier in their encounter with Ray Anson Mitchell. The district court further
concluded the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not
clearly established at the time of the shooting that their actions would violate the
4
Case: 17-13851 Date Filed: 12/04/2018 Page: 5 of 5
Constitution. Mitchell provides no legal arguments, much less relevant authorities,
contradicting the district court’s conclusions on these (or any other) dispositive
issues. See
id. at 680.
II. CONCLUSION
Mitchell has waived or otherwise abandoned review of all challenges to the
district court’s order granting summary judgment. We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.
5
