USCA11 Case: 23-12248 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12248 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________
JEAN DOMINIQUE MORANCY, Father, L.M., a minor, by and through her father, Jean Dominique Morancy, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus SABRINA ALEX SALOMON, GERALD FRANCIS ZNOSKO, ANGELA LYNN LAMBIASE, CARLOS A. OTERO, KEITH FRANKLIN WHITE, et al., USCA11 Case: 23-12248 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 2 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 23-12248
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:23-cv-00714-CEM-RMN ____________________
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellants-Plaintiffs Jean Dominique Morancy and his daughter, L.M., proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s dis- missal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims of racketeering and consti- tutional rights violations. Appellants argue, inter alia, that the dis- trict court improperly dismissed their complaint based on the Younger abstention doctrine. We REVERSE because the district court failed to properly construe Morancy’s “Petition to Add Par- ties and Supplement/Pleadings” as a motion rather than as an amended complaint. I. Background The facts of this case stem from a child dependency proceed- ing in Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit. In addition to the underlying dependency proceedings, Morancy had several pending state court appeals. USCA11 Case: 23-12248 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 3 of 7
23-12248 Opinion of the Court 3
In 2019, Morancy petitioned the Orange County Court re- garding timesharing and child support issues involving L.M.’s mother. Throughout his state litigation, Morancy fired his attor- ney and filed various motions to disqualify judges or transfer the case. Most of these motions related to allegations of fraud and rack- eteering activities among attorneys and judges working on the case. 1 On April 10, 2023, while state court proceedings continued, Morancy filed a pro se federal complaint alleging constitutional vi- olations and racketeering against Appellees-Defendants: L.M.’s mother and her attorneys; Morancy’s former lawyer and his firm; the state court judges; Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit Court; Flor- ida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal; and Florida’s Attorney Gen- eral. On April 24, 2023, Morancy filed an amended complaint. Both versions of the complaint requested monetary damages as compensation. On May 26, 2023, Morancy filed a “Petition to Add Parties and Supplement/Pleadings.” Morancy used the same form complaint document for his “Petition to Add Parties and Supple- ment/Pleadings” but he left off the section of the form dedicated to relief. All three documents discussed alleged violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Between May 30,
1 For example, Morancy alleged that a judge aided and abetted an attorney to
commit perjury “to prevent her from exposing [another judge’s] illegal activi- ties.” When one judge later suspended Morancy’s time-sharing because Mo- rancy would not attend a required parenting class, Mornacy described the judge’s reasoning as “pretextual.” USCA11 Case: 23-12248 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 4 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 23-12248
2023, and June 21, 2023, the various defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint entered April 24, 2023. On June 22, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued a re- port and recommendation (R&R) recommending that the district court refrain from exercising jurisdiction under the Younger absten- tion doctrine and dismiss the complaint. A footnote to the R&R notes that it “assumes the form complaint filed at docket number 33 is the operative complaint.” Docket Number 33 is Morancy’s Petition to Add Parties and Supplement/Pleadings. Morancy timely objected to the R&R. In that objection, Morancy men- tioned that “a stay should be provided in order to resolve the dam- ages claim later” and provided a chart of his requested damages. The district court adopted the R&R and exercised the Younger abstention doctrine to dismiss the case, which is permissi- ble when plaintiffs seek only injunctive relief. The district court order began by stating that the “Cause is before the Court on Plain- tiffs’ Petition to Add Parties and Supplement/Pleadings (Doc 33), which is an amended complaint.” Later, the district court noted that it decided to dismiss rather than stay the action in part because district courts should grant stays “only to claims for monetary dam- ages, not those for declaratory and injunctive relief” and “Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint [Doc. 33] only seeks injunctive relief.” After the district court’s dismissal, Appellants timely appealed. II. Standard of Review We review a district court’s decision to abstain for abuse of discretion. See Leonard v. Ala. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 61 F.4th 902, USCA11 Case: 23-12248 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 5 of 7
23-12248 Opinion of the Court 5
907 (11th Cir. 2023). We review a district court’s exercise of inher- ent authority for abuse of discretion. See Pedraza v. United Guar. Corp., 313 F.3d. 1323, 1328 (11th Cir. 2002). We will affirm on abuse of discretion review “unless we find that the district court has made a clear error of judgment or has applied the wrong legal standard.” United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1259 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). III. Applicable Law District courts have inherent authority “‘to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (quoting Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962)). Nonetheless, “[b]ecause of their very potency, inherent powers must be exer- cised with restraint and discretion.” Id. at 44. We liberally construe pro se filings. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Parties may amend their pleadings once as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Id. IV. Analysis Although we recognize the district court’s inherent author- ity to control its docket, Chambers, 501 U.S. at 43, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by treating the Petition to Add Parties and Supplement/Pleadings as the operative complaint, see Pedraza, 313 F.3d. at 1328. Morancy filed his initial complaint and an amended complaint using the standard form provided by the Middle District of Florida. Both of these form complaints USCA11 Case: 23-12248 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 6 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 23-12248
included a relief section requesting damages. The district court properly accepted Morancy’s first amended complaint as his one amendment as a matter of course. We do not find Morancy’s use of the standard form for his Petition to Add Parties and Supple- ment/Pleadings as indicative of this being a fully completed se- conded amended complaint.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA11 Case: 23-12248 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12248 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________
JEAN DOMINIQUE MORANCY, Father, L.M., a minor, by and through her father, Jean Dominique Morancy, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus SABRINA ALEX SALOMON, GERALD FRANCIS ZNOSKO, ANGELA LYNN LAMBIASE, CARLOS A. OTERO, KEITH FRANKLIN WHITE, et al., USCA11 Case: 23-12248 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 2 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 23-12248
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:23-cv-00714-CEM-RMN ____________________
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellants-Plaintiffs Jean Dominique Morancy and his daughter, L.M., proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s dis- missal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims of racketeering and consti- tutional rights violations. Appellants argue, inter alia, that the dis- trict court improperly dismissed their complaint based on the Younger abstention doctrine. We REVERSE because the district court failed to properly construe Morancy’s “Petition to Add Par- ties and Supplement/Pleadings” as a motion rather than as an amended complaint. I. Background The facts of this case stem from a child dependency proceed- ing in Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit. In addition to the underlying dependency proceedings, Morancy had several pending state court appeals. USCA11 Case: 23-12248 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 3 of 7
23-12248 Opinion of the Court 3
In 2019, Morancy petitioned the Orange County Court re- garding timesharing and child support issues involving L.M.’s mother. Throughout his state litigation, Morancy fired his attor- ney and filed various motions to disqualify judges or transfer the case. Most of these motions related to allegations of fraud and rack- eteering activities among attorneys and judges working on the case. 1 On April 10, 2023, while state court proceedings continued, Morancy filed a pro se federal complaint alleging constitutional vi- olations and racketeering against Appellees-Defendants: L.M.’s mother and her attorneys; Morancy’s former lawyer and his firm; the state court judges; Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit Court; Flor- ida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal; and Florida’s Attorney Gen- eral. On April 24, 2023, Morancy filed an amended complaint. Both versions of the complaint requested monetary damages as compensation. On May 26, 2023, Morancy filed a “Petition to Add Parties and Supplement/Pleadings.” Morancy used the same form complaint document for his “Petition to Add Parties and Supple- ment/Pleadings” but he left off the section of the form dedicated to relief. All three documents discussed alleged violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Between May 30,
1 For example, Morancy alleged that a judge aided and abetted an attorney to
commit perjury “to prevent her from exposing [another judge’s] illegal activi- ties.” When one judge later suspended Morancy’s time-sharing because Mo- rancy would not attend a required parenting class, Mornacy described the judge’s reasoning as “pretextual.” USCA11 Case: 23-12248 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 4 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 23-12248
2023, and June 21, 2023, the various defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint entered April 24, 2023. On June 22, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued a re- port and recommendation (R&R) recommending that the district court refrain from exercising jurisdiction under the Younger absten- tion doctrine and dismiss the complaint. A footnote to the R&R notes that it “assumes the form complaint filed at docket number 33 is the operative complaint.” Docket Number 33 is Morancy’s Petition to Add Parties and Supplement/Pleadings. Morancy timely objected to the R&R. In that objection, Morancy men- tioned that “a stay should be provided in order to resolve the dam- ages claim later” and provided a chart of his requested damages. The district court adopted the R&R and exercised the Younger abstention doctrine to dismiss the case, which is permissi- ble when plaintiffs seek only injunctive relief. The district court order began by stating that the “Cause is before the Court on Plain- tiffs’ Petition to Add Parties and Supplement/Pleadings (Doc 33), which is an amended complaint.” Later, the district court noted that it decided to dismiss rather than stay the action in part because district courts should grant stays “only to claims for monetary dam- ages, not those for declaratory and injunctive relief” and “Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint [Doc. 33] only seeks injunctive relief.” After the district court’s dismissal, Appellants timely appealed. II. Standard of Review We review a district court’s decision to abstain for abuse of discretion. See Leonard v. Ala. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 61 F.4th 902, USCA11 Case: 23-12248 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 5 of 7
23-12248 Opinion of the Court 5
907 (11th Cir. 2023). We review a district court’s exercise of inher- ent authority for abuse of discretion. See Pedraza v. United Guar. Corp., 313 F.3d. 1323, 1328 (11th Cir. 2002). We will affirm on abuse of discretion review “unless we find that the district court has made a clear error of judgment or has applied the wrong legal standard.” United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1259 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). III. Applicable Law District courts have inherent authority “‘to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (quoting Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962)). Nonetheless, “[b]ecause of their very potency, inherent powers must be exer- cised with restraint and discretion.” Id. at 44. We liberally construe pro se filings. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Parties may amend their pleadings once as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Id. IV. Analysis Although we recognize the district court’s inherent author- ity to control its docket, Chambers, 501 U.S. at 43, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by treating the Petition to Add Parties and Supplement/Pleadings as the operative complaint, see Pedraza, 313 F.3d. at 1328. Morancy filed his initial complaint and an amended complaint using the standard form provided by the Middle District of Florida. Both of these form complaints USCA11 Case: 23-12248 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 6 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 23-12248
included a relief section requesting damages. The district court properly accepted Morancy’s first amended complaint as his one amendment as a matter of course. We do not find Morancy’s use of the standard form for his Petition to Add Parties and Supple- ment/Pleadings as indicative of this being a fully completed se- conded amended complaint. Instead, because he did not include a section for relief or requesting damages, we must liberally construe to determine that Morancy is seeking to add factual allegations and defendants to his case. And because Morancy had filed an amended complaint, he had to seek leave to file a second amended com- plaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). As a result, the district court had to determine explicitly whether or not to grant this motion to amend. Further support that the district court erred comes from Morancy’s objection to the R&R reiterating in a graph under the heading “Clarification” that he was seeking monetary damages. We do not have to liberally construe that objection to show that Morancy’s Petition was meant to be a motion and not a second amended complaint. Thus, we find that the district court abused its discretion by construing the document as an amended com- plaint. 2
2 We make no determination on the underlying question of whether the
Younger Abstention Doctrine applies to the case. We leave that question to the district court after it follows the proper procedures for addressing Mo- rancy’s Petition to Add Parties and Supplement/Pleadings. USCA11 Case: 23-12248 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 7 of 7
23-12248 Opinion of the Court 7
We reverse the district court’s dismissal with instructions to treat the Petition to Add Parties Supplement/Pleadings as a motion or grant Morancy leave to file an amended complaint. REVERSED AND REMANDED.