Bradley Moore v. City of Fort Walton Beach

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: March 13, 2026
• Docket: 25-13371
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-13371 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2026 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13371 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

BRADLEY WAYNE MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, Municipality, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:25-cv-00656-MCR-ZCB ____________________

Before BRANCH, ANDERSON, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-13371 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2026 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 25-13371

Bradley Moore appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging Brady 1 and Giglio 2 viola- tions by the City of Fort Walton Beach (“the City”). Moore argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claims because they were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 3 He also argues that the district court erred when it dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. I. DISCUSSION

A. Failure to State a Claim A district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is reviewed de novo, using the same standards that govern Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dis- missals. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). Dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) are reviewed assuming all allega- tions in the complaint are true. Id. A formulaic recitation of the elements of a claim is not sufficient to survive a dismissal. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Instead, to prevent dis- missal for failure to state a claim, plaintiffs must allege sufficient

1 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 2 Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). 3 Moore also argues his claims were not barred by the statute of limitations. However, because the district court did not reach this issue, we will not ad- dress it in the first instance. McKissick v. Busby, 936 F.2d 520, 522 (11th Cir. 1991). USCA11 Case: 25-13371 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2026 Page: 3 of 4

25-13371 Opinion of the Court 3

facts to state a claim for relief that is “plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. Additionally, we have stated that “conclusory allegations, un- warranted deductions or facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.” Oxford Asset Mgmt., Ltd. v. Jaha- ris, 297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002). Prosecutors are required to disclose evidence that is favora- ble to a criminal defendant when that evidence is material to guilt or punishment. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). Failure to disclose upon a defendant’s request is a due process violation. Id. If the undisclosed evidence would have been reasonably likely to change the outcome of a verdict, the defendant is entitled to a new trial. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972). However, when a defendant pleads guilty, he “forgoes not only a fair trial, but also other accompanying constitutional guarantees.” United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002). There is no constitutional require- ment for the prosecution “to disclose material impeachment evi- dence prior to entering a guilty plea with a criminal defendant.” Id. at 633. Here, the district court properly dismissed Moore’s com- plaint for failure to state a claim. Many of Moore’s allegations are conclusory and lack factual support. He fails to explain how any alleged action or policy by the City violated his Brady rights or how his rights were violated at all when the prosecution is not required to disclose material impeachment evidence to a defendant prior to the entry of a guilty plea. Ruiz, 536 U.S. at 633. Because there was USCA11 Case: 25-13371 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2026 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 25-13371

no constitutional violation alleged, there is no basis for a § 1983 claim. AFFIRMED.4

4 In light of our decision affirming the district court’s dismissal of Moore’s

complaint for failure to state a claim, we need not address the district court’s alternate holding that the claim was barred by res judicata.