Case: 18-13877 Date Filed: 05/16/2019 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-13877
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:18-cv-80798-DMM
CLAUDE LEON FOWLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARTHA SROKA,
JUDGE,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 16, 2019)
Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-13877 Date Filed: 05/16/2019 Page: 2 of 5
Claude Leon Fowler, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s sua
sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
After careful review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Fowler filed a civil suit in Palm Beach County, Florida, 15th Judicial Circuit,
against his daughter, Martha Sroka. In that complaint, as relevant here, he asserted
that he was suffering from “loss of consortium and pleasure with his children and
grandchildren.” Doc. 1 at 2. 1 He alleged that “every man has the right and liberty
to have a blissful relation with his family and children.” Doc. 1-1 at 4. The claim
allegedly stemmed from an event where Fowler reported his daughter Sroka to
Child Protective Services for failing to control her son, “who suffers sibling rivalry
and constantly injures his sister.”
Id. at 6. Fowler alleged that his daughter took
retaliatory action by requiring his family members to stop communication with
him. The presiding Circuit Court judge, Cymonie Rowe, dismissed Fowler’s
complaint without prejudice.
Fowler then filed a pro se complaint in federal district court against Sroka
and Rowe. Citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he alleged that “the Florida family law is
unconstitutional as applied, and there is no forum for [his] injuries.” Doc. 1 at 1.
The district court granted Fowler leave to proceed in forma pauperis and sua
1
“Doc. #” refers to the numbered entry on the district court’s docket.
2
Case: 18-13877 Date Filed: 05/16/2019 Page: 3 of 5
sponte performed an initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The court determined that Fowler had failed to state a claim for which relief could
be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and dismissed the complaint
without prejudice.2 Fowler appealed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state
a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), viewing the allegations in the complaint as true
and applying the same standards that govern dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Alba v. Montford,
517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). We
hold pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by
attorneys. Tannenbaum v. United States,
148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, regardless of whether the
district court relied on that ground. Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc.,
506 F.3d
1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007).
To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim for relief is plausible on its
face when there is a “reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.”
Id. Fowler’s “obligation to provide the grounds of his
2
The district court did not expressly grant Fowler leave to amend the complaint.
3
Case: 18-13877 Date Filed: 05/16/2019 Page: 4 of 5
entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.”
Id. Although we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally,
issues not briefed on appeal by a litigant are deemed abandoned. Timson v.
Sampson,
518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
III. DISCUSSION
Construing Fowler’s pro se complaint liberally, we conclude that the district
court correctly decided his allegations were insufficient to withstand dismissal
under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). To succeed on a § 1983 action, the plaintiff must show
that a person acting under color of state law deprived him of a federal right.
Stephens v. DeGiovanni,
852 F.3d 1298, 1314 (11th Cir. 2017). A person acts
under color of state law when he acts with authority possessed by virtue of his
employment with the state, or when the manner of his conduct makes clear that he
was asserting state authority and not acting in the role of a private person. Myers
v. Bowman,
713 F.3d 1319, 1329-30 (11th Cir. 2013). Judges are entitled to
absolute immunity from liability “for damages for acts committed within their
judicial jurisdiction.” Stevens v. Osuna,
877 F.3d 1293, 1301 (11th Cir. 2017)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
4
Case: 18-13877 Date Filed: 05/16/2019 Page: 5 of 5
Fowler contends that the district court misused its power in finding his
complaint malicious and frivolous, but this is merely a conclusory statement. He
provides no factual details to support the court’s alleged misuse of power.3
Fowler’s complaint also fails to state a § 1983 claim against Sroka. Fowler neither
alleges that she is a state official nor that she was acting under the color of state
law. Fowler’s complaint appears to challenge Rowe’s motives for her ruling, but
she is entitled to absolute immunity when acting within her judicial capacity. The
district court did not err when it dismissed Fowler’s suit without prejudice.4
Because neither Sroka nor Rowe is a proper defendant under § 1983, Fowler failed
to state a claim for relief. The district court did not err in dismissing his complaint.
AFFIRMED.
3
On appeal, Fowler attached as appendices: (1) the state court order, with leave to amend
within 45 days; (2) a notice of electronic filing from the district court closing the present case;
and (3) a state court order transferring his amended complaint to the family division of the court.
This court does not consider these documents because they do not support the contention that the
district court misused its power.
4
We do not consider the issue of whether the district court erred by not expressly
granting Fowler leave to amend. Fowler could have refiled the suit. On appeal, he does not
explicitly argue that he should have been allowed to amend his complaint, and therefore he has
abandoned this issue.
Timson, 518 F.3d at 874.
5
