William Jones, Jr. v. State of Florida Department of

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant William H. Jones, Jr.. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-15581

Date Filed: 01/27/2017

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15581
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cv-62421-MGC

WILLIAM H. JONES, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
Division of Retirement,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 27, 2017)
Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-15581

Date Filed: 01/27/2017

Page: 2 of 5

Plaintiff William Jones, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against
Defendant State of Florida, Department of Management Services, Division of
Retirement. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Jones appeals that dismissal. After careful review, we affirm.
I.

BACKGROUND
In 2015, Plaintiff filed a handwritten complaint against Defendant. Though

the complaint is disjointed and confusing, Plaintiff appears to challenge the will
and retirement beneficiary distribution of his deceased spouse, Maxine Brown.
Plaintiff attached several documents to his complaint, including documents
pertaining to Defendant’s denial of his claim challenging his wife’s beneficiary
distribution, as well as documents related to his wife’s immigration status.
Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
The district court sua sponte denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for
failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The district court determined
that, even construing the complaint liberally, it failed to meet the pleading standard
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, as it did not provide any factual
allegations pertaining to the relief sought or put Defendant on notice about the
cause of action Plaintiff intended to pursue.
2

Case: 15-15581

II.

Date Filed: 01/27/2017

Page: 3 of 5

DISCUSSION
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to

state a claim, using the same standards that govern Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) dismissals. Leal v. Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 254 F.3d 1276, 1278 (11th Cir.
2001). Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) provides that a district court shall dismiss a case
proceeding in forma pauperis at any time if it determines that the action fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). To
survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) further provides that in order to state a
claim for relief, a pleading must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim
needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in
the alternative or different types of relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “The point is to give the defendant fair notice of what the
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Harrison v. Benchmark Elecs.
Huntsville, Inc., 593 F.3d 1206, 1214 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotations omitted).
3

Case: 15-15581

Date Filed: 01/27/2017

Page: 4 of 5

In his appellate brief, Plaintiff does not raise any arguments pertaining to the
district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff’s
brief instead consists of a compilation of immigration decisions and other
documents related to his wife’s last will and testament and her beneficiary
designation. Plaintiff has therefore abandoned any arguments he may have had
challenging the district court’s dismissal. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870,
874 (11th Cir. 2008) (“While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally,
issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” (citation
omitted)).
Nevertheless, even if we concluded that Plaintiff had not abandoned his
challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his complaint, the district court did not
err by dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim. Even construing
Plaintiff’s complaint liberally, it fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8. Indeed, Plaintiff does not state a basis for federal jurisdiction, nor is
it clear what causes of action Plaintiff is asserting against Defendant or what relief
Plaintiff seeks. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Further, the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice
and provided him the opportunity to amend his complaint to properly state a claim.
See Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001) (“Generally, where a
more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim, a plaintiff must be given at
4

Case: 15-15581

Date Filed: 01/27/2017

Page: 5 of 5

least one chance to amend the complaint before the district court dismisses the
action with prejudice.” (quotations omitted)). Plaintiff did not do so, and instead
filed an appeal with this Court. Accordingly, the district court did not err by
dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim.
AFFIRMED.

5