William Allen Arnold v. Columbus, Georgia

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-14974 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar AUGUST 26, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cv-00151-CDL
WILLIAM ALLEN ARNOLD,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COLUMBUS, GEORGIA,
City of, a municipal corporation,
MUSCOGEE COUNTY, GEORGIA,
a municipal corporation,
STATE OF GEORGIA,
a federal corporation,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(August 26, 2011)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
William Allen Arnold appeals the judgment of the district court dismissing
his complaint as amended on alternative grounds: (1) Arnold failed to comply with
a court order; (2) the complaint failed to state a claim for relief.
The district court explained why it dismissed the complaint on the first
ground thusly:
The Court ordered Plaintiff to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8 and provide ‘a short and plain statement of each claim
showing that he is entitled to relief.’ The Court gave Plaintiff specific
guidance on how to cure the deficiencies in his original Complaint,
and the Court warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Order
could result in dismissal of his Complaint. Plaintiff did not cure the
deficiencies; instead, he made his claims even more difficult to
discern. Moreover, Plaintiff made it clear that it would be futile for
the Court to order him to restate his Complaint once again. The Court
already ordered Plaintiff to set forth a short and plain statement of
each claim showing that he is entitled to relief; instead of complying
with that Order, Plaintiff filed a 209-page Amended Complaint that
does not elucidate his claims in the slightest. Because Plaintiff failed
to comply with the Court’s Order to cure the deficiencies in his
original Complaint—and because ordering Plaintiff to restate his
Complaint again would do no good—the Court finds that dismissal of
Plaintiff’s action is warranted.
Order, September 29, 2010.
We review a district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with a court
order for abuse of discretion. See Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA,
432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). Discretion means that the district court
2
may act within a “range of choice,” and that we will not disturb its decision as
long as it “stays within that range and is not influenced by any mistake of law.”
Id. (citation omitted). “[D]ismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where
[,as here,] the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of
discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (citations
omitted) (dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice when plaintiff
“stubbornly violated” a sanction order). A pro se complaint is held to less
stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys, but the pro se litigant is
not excused from complying with the relevant rules of substantive law and
procedure. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595, 30 L.Ed.2d
652 (1972); see Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1990).
We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal of Arnold’s
complaint, as amended.
AFFIRMED.
3