Willie-Frank Walker v. State of Florida

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Willie-Frank Walker. 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: 16-17655

Date Filed: 06/05/2017

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-17655
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-24078-DPG
WILLIE-FRANK WALKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF FLORIDA,
d.b.a. Herbert Erving Walker, III,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 5, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Willie-Frank Walker, a pro se Florida prisoner, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim, under Fed. R. Civ. P.

Case: 16-17655

Date Filed: 06/05/2017

Page: 2 of 4

12(b)(6). On appeal, Walker argues that the district court erred by dismissing his
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that it had federal
question jurisdiction over his claims. After thorough review, we affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266, 1270 (11th Cir. 2009). We
also review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6), taking all allegations in the complaint as true. See Hill v. White, 321
F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003).
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). To survive a Rule
12(b)(6) motion, a complaint need not have detailed factual allegations, but it must
have “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2006). We’ve said that “conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of
facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.”
Oxford Asset Mgmt., Ltd. v. Jaharis, 297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002). A
party can abandon an issue on appeal by failing to “plainly and prominently”
address it in his opening brief. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739
F.3d 678, 680-81 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted).

2

Case: 16-17655

Date Filed: 06/05/2017

Page: 3 of 4

When a prisoner challenges the fact or duration of his imprisonment and
seeks a determination that he is entitled to immediate or a speedier release from
confinement, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). In addition, courts have repeatedly rejected
as frivolous arguments that people are “sovereign citizens” who are not subject to
the jurisdiction of any courts. See United States v. Sterling, 738 F.3d 228, 233 n.1
(11th Cir. 2013).
Here, Walker’s claim that the district court erred by dismissing his
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction fails because the court did not
dismiss his complaint on those grounds. Rather, the district court dismissed the
complaint for failing to state a claim, under Rule 12(b)(6). Neither the district
court’s order nor the state’s motion to dismiss discussed subject-matter
jurisdiction.
Because Walker does not appear to dispute the district court’s holding under
Rule 12(b)(6) that he failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted, he has abandoned any argument that the district court erred
in dismissing his complaint on that ground. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680-81. But
even if Walker had not abandoned the argument, it would fail because his
complaint failed to meet the pleading standards. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Indeed, Walker has not even explained on appeal what claim he was trying to
3

Case: 16-17655

Date Filed: 06/05/2017

Page: 4 of 4

allege. Further, while Walker did not state that he was a “sovereign citizen,” his
arguments are similar to the “sovereign citizen” arguments that courts have
rejected as frivolous. See Sterling, 738 F.3d at 233 n.1. Finally, to the extent
Walker wished to challenge the legality of his detention, he was required to seek a
writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500.
AFFIRMED.

4