Waadew Aysisayh v. Ward

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-11308 MARCH 14, 2012
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-23884-FAM
WAADEW AYSISAYH,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lPlaintiff – Appellant,
versus
WARD,
a.k.a. Officer Sergeant,
a.k.a. Officer Ward,
SHAWN LAJENES,
a.k.a. Officer Sergeant,
a.k.a. Officer Shawn,
MICHELLE VEGA,
Officer Sergeant,
WILSON,
a.k.a. Officer Sergeant,
a.k.a. Officer Wilson,
SEVERSON, Assistant Warden of Programs, Officer,
et al.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants – Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 14, 2012)
Before CARNES, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Waadew Aysisayh, a Florida state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his complaint. Because, after carefully reading
Aysisayh’s brief, we are unable to find that he has made any argument that one of
the two independent bases for that dismissal was incorrect, we affirm.
We liberally construe pro se briefs and the arguments contained in them.
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). But we nonetheless
require pro se litigants to comply with procedural rules. Moton v. Cowart, 631
F.3d 1337, 1341 n.2 (11th Cir. 2011). And, despite the leniency we afford them,
we are not permitted to serve as de facto counsel for pro se litigants. GJR Invs.,
Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled in part
on other grounds as recognized in Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 709 (11th Cir.
2010). Thus, we will deem abandoned arguments that a pro se litigant does not
address. Timson, 518 F.3d at 874.
2
Finding that Aysisayh’s initial complaint was so “confusing and unclear”
that it was “impossible to tell why each separate defendant [was] being sued,” the
magistrate judge to whom his case was referred ordered Aysisayh to file an
amended complaint that complied with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and
10(b). Specifically, the magistrate judge’s order told Aysisayh that his complaint
must provide “a short and plain statement of [his] claim[s]” and must divide each
claim into separate paragraphs. After receiving Aysisayh’s amended complaint,
the magistrate judge recommended that his case be dismissed for two independent
reasons. First, because the amended complaint “suffer[ed] from the same
deficiencies as the initial complaint,” the magistrate judge recommended that it be
dismissed because Aysisayh had not complied with the previous order. Second,
the magistrate judge found that Aysisayh’s complaint failed to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted, and so in the alternative was due to be dismissed
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). As best we can tell, Aysisayh did not
challenge the first independent reason for dismissing his complaint in his
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. After review, the
district court adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed Aysisayh’s
complaint for the reasons that the magistrate judge had stated.
We have carefully and thoroughly examined Aysisayh’s brief on appeal.
3
Even reading it liberally, however, we are unable to find within Aysisayh’s brief
even a single mention of the first ground upon which the district court dismissed
his amended complaint, namely that it still did not comply with Rules 8 and 10
despite the magistrate judge’s order that it do so. Nowhere in his brief does
Aysisayh refer to that alternative reason for dismissing his complaint, much less
address why he believes it was incorrect. There is simply nothing in Aysisayh’s
brief on appeal that we could construe as a challenge to the district court’s
determination that his complaint should be dismissed because it did not comply
with the Federal Rules and the magistrate judge’s order without effectively
becoming Aysisayh’s counsel. And that is a role we may not take. Therefore, on
this independent ground for dismissal, which Aysisayh has abandoned, we affirm
the district court’s order dismissing the complaint.
AFFIRMED.
4