Case: 19-10179 Date Filed: 11/27/2019 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-10179
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:17-cv-00361-LC-EMT
REX GAINEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARD AUSTIN,
Law Enforcement Officer,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(November 27, 2019)
Before BRANCH, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-10179 Date Filed: 11/27/2019 Page: 2 of 3
Rex Gainey, a pro se prisoner, appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment for police officer Richard Austin, thus rejecting Gainey’s
18 U.S.C.
§ 1983 claim. The district court relied upon two separate and independent
reasons: first that Gainey’s excessive force claim was barred by Heck v.
Humphrey;1 and second, that Austin was entitled to qualified immunity. On
appeal, Gainey argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment
on qualified immunity grounds because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to
whether Gainey knew Austin was a law enforcement officer and thereby whether
Austin’s use of force was reasonable.
Although we liberally construe pro se litigant’s pleadings, they must
nonetheless conform to procedural rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc.,
490 F.3d 826, 829
(11th Cir. 2007). To obtain reversal of a district court judgment that is based on
multiple, independent grounds an appellant must convince us that every stated
ground for the judgment against him is incorrect. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian
Ins. Co.,
739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014) (affirming the district court’s decision
without a review of the merits because the plaintiff failed to address one of the
court’s alternative holdings in its brief on appeal). When an appellant fails to
challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based
1
Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994).
2
Case: 19-10179 Date Filed: 11/27/2019 Page: 3 of 3
its judgment, he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it
follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.
Id.
Here, Gainey failed to brief a challenge to the district court’s grant of
summary judgment on Heck doctrine grounds. The district court adopted the
magistrate judge’s R&R and granted summary judgment on the two independent
grounds it articulated, requiring that both grounds be challenged on appeal. See
Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680. Because Gainey failed to address the district court’s
grant as to Heck, he is deemed to have abandoned the issue. Id. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s ruling.
AFFIRMED.
3
