Regis Butler v. Broward Co. Central Examining , 367 F. App'x 991 ( 2010 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-15043 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 5, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 08-60764-CV-JAL
REGIS BUTLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BROWARD COUNTY CENTRAL EXAMINING BOARD,
BOB SALISBURY,
Chairman,
THOMAS SIDOTI,
DON HOMER,
BOB YOUNG, Members, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(March 5, 2010)
Before BLACK, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Regis Butler, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of her
42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim
and for failure to comply with a court order, under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and 41(b), respectively. On appeal, Butler argues that the
district court erred when it dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim
without first considering documents that were submitted in a previous civil rights
lawsuit. Butler also contends that the district court erred when it dismissed her
complaint without first receiving the defendants’ answer.
We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6),
“accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff.” Swann v. S. Health Partners, Inc., 388 F.3d 834,
836 (11th Cir. 2004). Dismissals under Rule 41 are reviewed for abuse of
discretion. Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns, 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir.
1999). Courts are not allowed to act as de facto counsel or to rewrite a deficient
pleading. GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir.
1998). Moreover, the legal parameters of a lawsuit cannot be expanded sua sponte
by the district court. Id.2
When the district court has before it a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, it is “limited primarily to the face of the complaint and
attachments thereto.” Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 116 F.3d
1364, 1368 (11th Cir. 1997). The defendant’s time frame for filing an answer is
stayed pending the district court’s disposition of the pending motion to dismiss.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A).
Here, the district court had no duty to seek out and consider documents
submitted in a previous civil rights lawsuit in order to determine whether Butler’s
complaint stated a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Whether the documents in
Butler’s previous lawsuit established a claim or not, it is not the district court’s role
to act as Butler’s de facto counsel and sua sponte seek out those documents in
order to rewrite her pleadings. If Butler wanted the district court to consider the
documents, she could have attached them as exhibits to her complaint, or presented
them to the district court in her response, so that the 12(b)(6) motion would be
treated as one for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) (“If, on a motion
under Rule 12(b)(6) . . . matters outside the pleading are presented to and not
excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment
under Rule 56.”). In addition, the defendants were not required to file an answer
because the district court dismissed the case for failure to state claim. Upon
3
finding that Butler had not properly stated a claim, the district court was permitted
to manage its own docket by dismissing Butler’s complaint “so as to achieve the
orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla.
Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S. Ct. 2123, 2132 (1991)).
Because the district court’s actions were proper, they do not show a pattern and
practice of judicial abuse of power or bias, as Butler appears to allege.
Accordingly, finding no error below, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.1
1
Appellant’s request for oral argument is DENIED.
4