USCA11 Case: 22-12857 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 11/28/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12857
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JEROME ELLINGTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF FLORIDA,
CRAIG PARNELL CLENDINEN,
Assistant State Attorney Hillsborough (Circa) 2000,
HARRY LEE COE, III,
The Late Former Judge/State Attorney for Hillsborough County,
MARK F. LEWIS,
Assistant State Attorney Hillsborough (Circa) 2000,
Defendants-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 22-12857 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 11/28/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12857
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cv-00587-MSS-AEP
____________________
Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Ellington, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se,
appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his § 1983
complaint against the State of Florida, Assistant State Attorneys
Craig Clendinen and Mark Lewis, and the late Honorable Harry
Lee Coe, III, for failure to state a claim as barred under Heck v.
Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994). On appeal, he reasserts that his state
convictions and sentences were unconstitutional.
While we hold the allegations of pro se litigants to “less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” we
may not “serve as de facto counsel for a party” or “rewrite an
otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.”
Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd.,
760 F.3d 1165, 1168–69 (11th Cir. 2014).
An appellant forfeits any argument not briefed on appeal, made in
passing, or raised briefly without supporting arguments or
authority. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.,
739 F.3d 678, 681–
82 (11th Cir. 2014) (collecting cases); see also United States v.
Campbell,
26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir.) (en banc).
USCA11 Case: 22-12857 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 11/28/2023 Page: 3 of 3
22-12857 Opinion of the Court 3
Here, Ellington has forfeited any argument that the district
court improperly found the claim barred by Heck. Ellington’s
argument is no more than a recitation of his original civil rights
claims below. Under the most liberal construction, Ellington
argues that the district court erred by dismissing his complaint
because he was wrongfully prosecuted, his state convictions were
unconstitutional, and his wrongful convictions caused him injury.
His brief passingly mentions that this Court should hear his appeal
“in spite of the Technical Reasons” offered below, but this is not
sufficient to preserve a challenge to the district court’s Heck ruling.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
