USCA11 Case: 20-10181 Date Filed: 05/21/2021 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-10181
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cv-14060-RLR
DARIO M. RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ALAN LAWSON,
Supervisor, Supreme Court,
ALBERTO GONZALEZ,
Attorney General,
CHARLES T. CANADY,
Supervisor, Supreme Court,
HUGH HURWITZ,
Supervisor, Bureau of Prison,
JAMES C. MAHEN,
District Judge, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 21, 2021)
USCA11 Case: 20-10181 Date Filed: 05/21/2021 Page: 2 of 3
Before JORDAN, GRANT, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Dario Rodriguez appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint. The district court dismissed Rodriguez’s second amended
complaint because Rodriguez failed to comply with its orders. On appeal,
Rodriguez reiterates the merits of his § 1983 claims, instead of challenging the
basis of the district court’s dismissal of his complaint.
A legal claim or argument that is not briefed on appeal is deemed
abandoned. Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th
Cir. 2004). This policy applies to pro se pleadings, which are held to a less strict
standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and are construed liberally. See
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Rodriguez has abandoned
his challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his case for failure to comply with
the district court’s orders because he has not briefed the issue on appeal. See id.
In any event, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing
Rodriguez’s seconded amended complaint without prejudice. See Betty K
Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining
we review the dismissal of a lawsuit for failure to comply with the rules of the
court for an abuse of discretion). A federal district court has the inherent power to
dismiss a case sua sponte under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) if the
2
USCA11 Case: 20-10181 Date Filed: 05/21/2021 Page: 3 of 3
plaintiff fails to comply with a court order. Id. Rodriguez failed to comply with
the court’s orders when he filed his second amended complaint because the
complaint went beyond the court’s 20-page limit and failed to present his claims in
short and plain statements in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)
as directed. See Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (stating
although we liberally construe pro se pleadings, pro se litigants are nonetheless
required to conform their pleadings to procedural rules). Rodriguez had been
warned that failure to comply with the court’s orders could result in the dismissal
of his complaint. Additionally, the district court’s dismissal without prejudice
would have allowed Rodriguez to re-file his complaint in compliance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 720
F.2d 1495, 1499 (11th Cir. 1983) (holding that dismissal without prejudice, even
for a minor violation of a court order to file a brief, was not an abuse of discretion).
Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Rodriguez’s
second amended complaint under Rule 41(b). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3