Case: 17-15637 Date Filed: 08/24/2018 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-15637
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cv-00182-RH-CAS
LARRY M. WYNN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
POSTAL SERVICE,
COURT CLERK,
PRISON AUTHORITIES,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_______________________
(August 24, 2018)
Before JORDAN, BRANCH and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 17-15637 Date Filed: 08/24/2018 Page: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Larry Wynn, a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the sua sponte dismissal
of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. He raises two issues. First, Wynn contends the
district court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint for abuse of judicial
process because the cases he failed to list on the complaint form did not fall within
the scope of the disclosure requirements. Second, Wynn asserts the failure to
deliver his mail alleged in his complaint is sufficient to show a reckless and callous
indifference to his rights and, therefore, sufficient to state a claim under § 1983.
After review,1 we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Wynn’s
complaint for abuse of judicial process because he repeatedly refused to accurately
disclose his prior litigation history. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, “[a] finding that the
plaintiff engaged in bad faith litigiousness or manipulative tactics warrants
dismissal.” Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 613 (11th Cir. 1997). In
addition, a district court may impose sanctions if a party knowingly files a pleading
that contains false contentions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3). Although pro se
pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys, a
1
We review the district court’s imposition of sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for
abuse of discretion. Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 612 (11th Cir. 1997). We review
dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo, applying the same standard as the district
court. Redland Co., Inc. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 568 F.3d 1232, 1234 (11th Cir. 2009).
2
Case: 17-15637 Date Filed: 08/24/2018 Page: 3 of 5
plaintiff's pro se status will not excuse mistakes regarding procedural rules.
McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
Notably, Wynn had multiple opportunities to amend his disclosures. The
magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”), requiring Wynn to
file an amended complaint because his allegations regarding his prior litigation
history were seemingly false. The magistrate judge further advised Wynn that
failing to accurately disclose his prior litigation history would result in dismissal of
the suit. Over Wynn’s objections, the district court adopted the R&R. Wynn was
directed two additional times to file an amended complaint and to show good cause
why his case should not be dismissed for failing to honestly disclose his prior cases
in the initial complaint. And each time, Wynn was warned that failure to comply
would result in a recommendation to dismiss the case. Wynn did not amend his
complaint. The magistrate judge then issued an R&R recommending dismissal of
the suit for abuse of judicial process, which the district court adopted.
On appeal, Wynn asserts that none of his prior cases fall within the scope of
the complaint form’s disclosure requirements. We disagree and, to illustrate our
disagreement, will discuss one case Wynn failed to disclose. In 1999, Wynn filed
a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. That suit falls
squarely within the complaint form’s disclosure requirements. The complaint form
3
Case: 17-15637 Date Filed: 08/24/2018 Page: 4 of 5
requires prisoners to list all other actions filed in federal court which either
challenge a conviction or otherwise relate to the conditions of confinement. A
§ 2254 habeas petition is a challenge to a conviction. Therefore, Wynn’s argument
that this petition—which he was given multiple opportunities to disclose—falls
outside the scope of the complaint form’s disclosure requirements, is without
merit. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Wynn’s
complaint for abuse of judicial process.
Alternatively, the district court correctly concluded that Wynn’s complaint
failed to state a claim. To prevail on a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
plaintiff must show that he was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under
color of state law. Griffin v. City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir.
2001). But a state official’s mere negligent conduct, even if it causes injury, does
not constitute an actionable deprivation under § 1983. Daniels v. Williams, 474
U.S. 327, 328 (1986).
Here, Wynn’s complaint alleges that one of the defendants failed to deliver
his mail. As the district court correctly noted, that allegation meaningfully differs
from an allegation that one of the defendants intended to cause Wynn harm or was
recklessly or deliberately indifferent towards the delivery of his mail. Although
the district court told Wynn that his complaint needed to allege more than
negligence and gave him multiple opportunities to amend, Wynn never did.
4
Case: 17-15637 Date Filed: 08/24/2018 Page: 5 of 5
Because Wynn’s allegation, taken as true and liberally construed, alleges only
negligence, his complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted
under § 1983. Daniels, 474 U.S. at 328. Accordingly, the district court did not err
in dismissing Wynn’s complaint for failure to state a claim.
AFFIRMED.
5