Case: 14-11974 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-11974
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-00959-CAP
JOHNNY TRAYLOR,
Plaintiff – Appellant.
versus
KIRSTEN MILLER HOWARD, et al.
Defendants – Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(September 18, 2014)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Traylor, a frequent litigant proceeding pro se, appeals the sua
sponte dismissal of his complaint as frivolous and for failure to comply with
Case: 14-11974 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 2 of 3
the district court’s standing order enjoining him from filing any new lawsuits
without first obtaining permission from the district court and posting a
$5,000 bond. Traylor argues that the district court’s order dismissing his
complaint violated his right to a jury trial and that his complaint was not
frivolous. 1 We affirm.
We review a district court’s dismissal for frivolity for abuse of
discretion. Cf. Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1348–49 (11th Cir. 2001)
(conducting frivolity review of an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)). A district court has the inherent authority to dismiss a frivolous
complaint. Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362,
363–64 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of
Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307–08, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 1821 (1989) (“Section
1915(d), for example, authorizes courts to dismiss a ‘frivolous or malicious’
action, but there is little doubt they would have power to do so even in the
absence of this statutory provision.”). We have reviewed the allegations in
the complaint, and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing Traylor’s complaint as frivolous. As the district court properly
noted, “[n]one of the counts contain allegations that the defendants named in
the action committed some wrong or violated some right of Traylor’s . . . .”
1
The district court had jurisdiction because the complaint, while frivolous, does purport to bring
at least one claim under federal law.
2
Case: 14-11974 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 3 of 3
(District Court Order at 2). The district court did not dismiss the complaint
based upon its standing order. Thus, we need not address the propriety of
the court’s standing order.
AFFIRMED
3