[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-15952 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 30, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 09-00459-CV-FTM-99SPC
PETER HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHARLOTTE CORRECTION INSTITUTION,
OFFICER GUARINO,
Security Staff,
OFFICER GALLAGHER,
Security Staff,
LIEUTENANT LOWMAN,
Security Staff,
SERGEANT GATTO,
Security Staff, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(August 30, 2010)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Peter Hernandez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s dismissal, without prejudice, of his civil rights action, which was filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for (1) abuse of the judicial process, and (2)
alternatively, failure to comply with Rules 8(a) and 10(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. On appeal, Hernandez contends that the district court abused its
discretion in dismissing his complaint for abuse of the judicial process because it
erred in finding that he committed perjury with respect to his response to the
question on the complaint form asking whether other federal lawsuits had been
dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim.
We liberally construe pro se briefs. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874
(11th Cir. 2008). In liberally construing a litigant’s arguments, however, we will
not act as de facto counsel for the litigant. GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia,
132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998). Thus, arguments not raised on appeal by
pro se litigants are deemed abandoned. Timson, 518 F.3d at 874.
Upon review of the record, and upon consideration of the party’s brief, we
affirm. Even construed liberally, Hernandez’s brief still fails to address the district
court’s alternative basis for dismissing the complaint—failure to comply with
2
Rules 8(a) and 10(b). On this independent ground for the district court’s dismissal.
which Hernandez has abandoned, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing
the complaint and need not address Hernandez’s remaining arguments.
AFFIRMED.
3