Case: 17-15587 Date Filed: 06/12/2018 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-15587
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-24273-CMA
SHAWN MARCOS HENRY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF FLORIDA,
d.b.a. Lisa Kreeger,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 12, 2018)
Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-15587 Date Filed: 06/12/2018 Page: 2 of 3
Shawn Henry, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s sua sponte
dismissal of his complaint against the State of Florida. The district court dismissed
Henry’s complaint without prejudice because he failed to comply with the rules for
pleadings set out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After careful review, we
affirm.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal for failure to
comply with the rules of the court. Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th
Cir. 2006). Even though we construe pro se pleadings liberally, pro se litigants
must nonetheless comply with the court’s procedural rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc.,
490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(b) provides that “[i]f the
plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a
defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b). Although the plain language of Rule 41(b) suggests that a district court may
dismiss an action only upon a defendant’s motion, we have observed that a district
court may sua sponte dismiss a case under Rule 41(b). See Betty K Agencies, Ltd.
v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). In addition to its
authority under Rule 41(b), a district court “also has the inherent ability to dismiss
a claim in light of its authority to enforce its orders and provide for the efficient
disposition of litigation.” Zocaras, 465 F.3d at 483.
2
Case: 17-15587 Date Filed: 06/12/2018 Page: 3 of 3
Rule 8 requires pleadings to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means
that “a complaint must contain sufficient 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). A claim is facially plausible “when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
Henry’s complaint, even when read under the relaxed standard applicable to
pro se pleadings, fails to state a plausible claim for relief. Henry’s allegations
consist almost exclusively of statements of law disconnected from any factual
context. Despite these statements of law, Henry never articulates a cause of action
or identifies the legal basis for his complaint. Even though Henry lists the State of
Florida as the defendant on the caption page of his complaint, he fails to provide
any facts that would give rise to a claim against the state. The same is true of
Henry’s vague references to Lisa Kreeger, who is also listed in the caption. He
mentions Kreeger a few times throughout his complaint, but fails to identify her or
explain what she did that would give rise to a claim. The district court did not
abuse its discretion in dismissing Henry’s complaint for failure to comply with
Rule 8.
AFFIRMED.
3
Shawn Marcos Henry v. State of Florida
Combined Opinion