Case: 14-13098 Date Filed: 01/05/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-13098
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cv-00188-RH-CAS
EARLEAN BOZEMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
MILLIE B. MILLER,
Plaintiff,
versus
DAVID POOLE,
DANIEL POOLE,
STUART JOHNSON,
INA POOLE,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(January 5, 2015)
Case: 14-13098 Date Filed: 01/05/2015 Page: 2 of 3
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Earlean Bozeman appeals pro se the dismissal of her complaint about the
violation of her civil rights by David, Daniel, and Ina Poole and by Stuart Johnson.
See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985. The district court dismissed Bozeman’s complaint
for failure to state a claim and as untimely. We affirm.
We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim
and for being untimely. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 872 (11th Cir.
2008); Berman v. Blount Parrish & Co., 525 F.3d 1057, 1058 (11th Cir. 2008). We
accept all allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Timson, 518 F.3d at 872. “To survive a motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter” from which the district
court can draw the reasonable inference “that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949
(2009).
Bozeman failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Bozeman alleged that she struck a vehicle after it braked
suddenly and that the Pooles and Johnson orchestrated the accident to collect an
unlawful debt from her. These allegations, even if true, fail to establish that the
Pooles and Johnson, individually or collectively, deprived Bozeman of any right
2
Case: 14-13098 Date Filed: 01/05/2015 Page: 3 of 3
under federal law. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985; Griffin v. City of Opa-Locka, 261
F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001). Bozeman’s complaint also fails to allege facts
that could support a finding that the Pooles or Johnson were transformed into state
actors either by performing a function “traditionally [within] the exclusive
prerogative of the state,” by acting with the encouragement of the state, or by
serving in a close, interdependent relationship with the state. Focus on the Family
v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Auth., 344 F.3d 1263, 1277 (11th Cir. 2003).
Bozeman’s complaint is untimely too. Bozeman’s federal claims, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, must be filed within the statute of limitation provided under Florida law,
which is “within four years of the allegedly unconstitutional or otherwise illegal
act.” Burton v. City of Belle Glade, 178 F.3d 1175, 1188 (11th Cir. 1999).
Bozeman alleged that the accident occurred in 2007, but she did not file her
complaint until 2014, approximately three years after the statute of limitation
expired.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Bozeman’s complaint.
3