James Lee Ballard v. John Lyon Broling

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: October 16, 2023
• Docket: 22-12651
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 22-12651 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 10/16/2023 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12651 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

JAMES LEE BALLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JOHN LYON BROLING, Assistant Regional Counselor, CANDACE KAYE BROWER, Regional Counselor, DAVID KREIDER, Alachua County Judge,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-12651 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 10/16/2023 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12651

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-00104-AW-MJF ____________________

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: State pretrial detainee James Lee Ballard, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. After review, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND On May 10, 2022, Ballard sued Defendant-Appellees John Lyon Broling, Candace Kaye Brower, and Judge David Kreider for violating his constitutional rights under § 1983. Broling was Bal- lard’s appointed counsel in his criminal prosecution, Brower was regional defense counsel, and Judge Kreider was the presiding state judge. Ballard alleged that Broling retaliated against Ballard, result- ing in malicious prosecution, and Brower and Judge Kreider know- ingly enabled Broling’s actions, participating in a conspiracy to vi- olate Ballard’s constitutional rights. Ballard also moved to proceed in forma pauperis. A magistrate judge reviewed the complaint un- der 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and issued a report and recommendation (R&R). USCA11 Case: 22-12651 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 10/16/2023 Page: 3 of 4

22-12651 Opinion of the Court 3

The magistrate judge concluded that Ballard’s complaint should be dismissed 1) on Younger1 abstention grounds; 2) under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because the claims seek monetary damages against defendants who are immune from such relief; and 3) for abuse of the judicial process for Ballard’s failure to disclose his liti- gation history on his complaint form. The district court dismissed Ballard’s complaint without prejudice for abuse of the judicial pro- cess, adopting the R&R to the extent it was consistent with the or- der. The district court did not reach a decision on the merits for the first two issues. Ballard timely appealed. II. DISCUSSION We review sanctions imposed pursuant to § 1915 under an abuse of discretion standard. See Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 612 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). Although pro se pleadings may be liberally construed, a plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse mis- takes regarding procedural rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). A dismissal without prejudice will generally not be held as an abuse of discretion because the affected party retains the opportunity to refile. See Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 720 F.2d 1495, 1499 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).

1 Federal courts will not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions except un-

der extraordinary circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971). USCA11 Case: 22-12651 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 10/16/2023 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 22-12651

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Ballard’s claim without prejudice. Ballard used a complaint form, and under “Prior Litigation,” it asked the following question: B. Have you filed other lawsuits in either state or federal court dealing with the same facts or issue involved in this case? In response to this question, Ballard replied “no,” stating “[t]his is the same criminal case but separate issues and defendants.” Contrary to Ballard’s response, the R&R noted that since January 4, 2022, Ballard had filed six civil rights lawsuits in the Northern District of Florida, each with issues and facts that over- lapped with this case. Regardless of whether his response to the question was knowing or intentional, Ballard failed to accurately disclose his other litigation—and failed to do so under oath. The district court was entitled to find this failure an abuse of the judicial process. Furthermore, because the district court dismissed Bal- lard’s complaint without prejudice, the dismissal was not an abuse of discretion. See Dynes, 720 F.2d at 1499. III. CONCLUSION The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Ballard’s complaint without prejudice. AFFIRMED.