Case: 15-14545 Date Filed: 01/13/2017 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14545
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-22733-JLK
WILLIAM H. JONES, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 13, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-14545 Date Filed: 01/13/2017 Page: 2 of 6
Plaintiff William Jones, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint filed against Defendant National Labor Relations Board
(“NLRB”), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). After careful review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant. In the complaint,
Plaintiff referenced unfair labor practices charges that he filed against his union in
2007. Plaintiff claimed that he did not receive back pay or the documents he
requested from Defendant as part of a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”)
request. Plaintiff attached numerous documents related to the dispute with his
union and the FOIA request. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.
A magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis,
concluding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could
be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The magistrate judge explained
that Plaintiff’s complaint did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
because it contained no allegations and it was unclear what relief Plaintiff sought.
The magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why the complaint
should not be dismissed, or to file an amended complaint that showed a basis for
federal subject matter jurisdiction and that Plaintiff had a cognizable claim.
2
Case: 15-14545 Date Filed: 01/13/2017 Page: 3 of 6
Plaintiff responded to the show cause order, but did not address the
magistrate judge’s concerns or file an amended complaint. The magistrate judge
subsequently ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee. The magistrate judge then
issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”), recommending the dismissal of
Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. The magistrate judge noted that Plaintiff
did not comply with the initial show cause order and did not file an amended
complaint.
The district court adopted the R&R and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint
without prejudice. The district court noted that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state
a claim for which relief could be granted, and that Plaintiff had the opportunity to
file an amended complaint but failed to comply with the magistrate judge’s order.
II. 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
3
Case: 15-14545 Date Filed: 01/13/2017 Page: 4 of 6
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).
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 or for failure
to comply with the magistrate judge’s order. Instead, Plaintiff’s brief contains
various documents, including decisions involving the NLRB and excerpts from the
record. While pro se briefs are generally held to a less stringent standard than
those submitted by counsel, courts are not required to step into the role of de facto
counsel. GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir.
1998), overruled in part on other grounds as recognized in Randall v. Scott, 610
4
Case: 15-14545 Date Filed: 01/13/2017 Page: 5 of 6
F.3d 701, 709 (11th Cir. 2010). Because Plaintiff has failed to raise any argument,
let alone make any statement, pertaining to the district court’s reasons for
dismissing his complaint, he has abandoned any potential argument he may have
had challenging that 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 dismissal of his complaint, the district court did not err by
dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.1 Construing Plaintiff’s complaint liberally, his complaint contains no
allegations, was not supported by any legal authority, and was devoid of any
reference to a cognizable cause of action. In fact, it was not even clear from the
complaint the relief sought by Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Moreover, the
magistrate judge provided Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint to cure
the deficiencies, and Plaintiff chose not to file an amended complaint. 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 least
one chance to amend the complaint before the district court dismisses the action
1
Because we affirm the dismissal based on failure to state a claim, we do not address Plaintiff’s
failure to comply with the show cause order. See Koziara v. City of Casselberry, 392 F.3d 1302,
1306 n.2 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[W]e may affirm the district court’s judgment on any grounds
supported by the record.”).
5
Case: 15-14545 Date Filed: 01/13/2017 Page: 6 of 6
with prejudice.” (quotations omitted)). Accordingly, the district court did not err
by dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim.
AFFIRMED.
6