USCA11 Case: 20-12873 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-12873
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-03469-SDG
WILLIAMS, SCOTT & ASSOCIATES LLC, et al.,
Plaintiff,
JOHN T. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(March 1, 2021)
Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-12873 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 2 of 4
John Williams, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his amended
complaint brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671 et
seq. Williams asserts he pleaded plausible facts to show there was a conspiracy
among federal judges, agents, and lawyers to alter or falsify documents, including
warrants, to seize $25,000.00 from his company’s bank account.
We review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint that was filed in forma
pauperis (IFP) as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for an abuse of
discretion. Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002). Section
1915(e) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that any IFP action shall be
dismissed “at any time if,” in relevant part, it “is frivolous.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We hold “the allegations of a pro se complaint to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica
Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). However, “this leniency does not give
[us] license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise
deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Id. at 1168-69 (quotations
omitted). Further, “issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed
abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
As an initial matter, Williams fails to address the district court’s dispositive
finding that his amended complaint was a shotgun pleading. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s dismissal on this basis. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian
2
USCA11 Case: 20-12873 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 3 of 4
Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 682-83 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining we can affirm on the
ground that the appellant has abandoned any arguments regarding the district
court’s dispositive holdings, even if the district court’s holdings are in the
alternative).
In any event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the
amended complaint as frivolous. Williams’s naked assertions of a conspiracy
involving more than a dozen federal agents, judges, and lawyers, without any
sufficient supporting factual allegations to allege a plausible claim, is the type of
fanciful complaint the frivolity screening seeks to reject. See Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (stating a claim is factually frivolous “only
if the facts alleged are clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations that
are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional” (citations and quotations omitted)); see also
Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 783, 785 (11th Cir. 1984) (upholding the
district court’s dismissal without prejudice of an IFP 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
as frivolous when it presented merely a “naked assertion of a conspiracy between a
state judge and private defendants without supporting operative facts”). The
district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the amended complaint as
frivolous because its factual contentions were pure conjecture and baseless, as
Williams failed to support his numerous accusations of falsified court documents
and records, forged signatures, and untimely account freezes with any factual
3
USCA11 Case: 20-12873 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 4 of 4
allegations other than conclusory and dubious statements. See Bilal v. Driver, 251
F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001) (stating § 1915 “accords judges not only the
authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but
also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and
dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless” (quotations
omitted)); Napier, 314 F.3d at 531 (explaining a claim is frivolous if it is without
arguable merit in either fact or law).
AFFIRMED.
4