USCA11 Case: 22-12038 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 01/25/2024 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12038
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
WILLIAM M. WINDSOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES N. HATTEN, et al.,
Defendants,
B. GRUTBY,
JUDGE WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.,
JUDGE ORINDA D. EVANS,
JUDGE JULIE E. CARNES,
JOHN LEY, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 22-12038 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 01/25/2024 Page: 2 of 8
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12038
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-01923-TWT
____________________
____________________
No. 22-12411
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
WILLIAM M. WINDSOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES N. HATTEN, et al.,
Defendants,
B. GRUTBY,
JUDGE WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.,
JUDGE ORINDA D. EVANS,
JUDGE JULIE E. CARNES,
USCA11 Case: 22-12038 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 01/25/2024 Page: 3 of 8
22-12038 Opinion of the Court 3
JOHN LEY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-01923-TWT
____________________
Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is the latest in a line of frivolous litigation
pursued by William Windsor, who is proceeding pro se. In 2011,
the Northern District of Georgia issued a permanent injunction
enjoining Windsor from pursuing any proceeding in any court
without first obtaining leave of the federal district court in the
appropriate district. In the summer of 2022, Windsor submitted
various motions in the same district court, and the court denied
them. Windsor now appeals those denials. After review, we affirm
the district court’s decision.
I. Background
The relevant facts involve various motions and notices of
appeal filed by Windsor after the issuance of a permanent
injunction in 2011. After Windsor sued several federal judges on
USCA11 Case: 22-12038 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 01/25/2024 Page: 4 of 8
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12038
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, as well as several
court employees (for simplicity’s sake, we refer to the group
collectively as “the Judges”), 1 the district court entered a permanent
injunction against Windsor as follows:
Plaintiff, William M. Windsor, and any parties acting
in concert with him or at his behest, are
PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from filing any
complaint or initiating any proceeding, including any
new lawsuit or administrative proceeding, in any
court (state or federal) or agency in the United States
without first obtaining leave of a federal district court
in the district in which the new complaint or
proceeding is to be filed.
Windsor filed various notices of appeal protesting the injunction.
We dismissed his appeals in 2011 for want of prosecution and lack
of jurisdiction.
In 2018, Windsor sought modification of the injunction.
The district court partially granted his motion by adding language
clarifying that the injunction did not apply to criminal complaints
or protective orders.2 On appeal in 2019, we upheld the district
court’s denial of the other requested modifications.
1 Windsor first filed his complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Georgia. The United States removed the action to the Northern District of
Georgia.
2 The modification added the following language:
USCA11 Case: 22-12038 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 01/25/2024 Page: 5 of 8
22-12038 Opinion of the Court 5
Then, at some point, Windsor became involved with Marcie
Schreck, a Texas woman seeking to sue on behalf of her mother.
In May 2022, the district court denied Windsor’s motion asking the
court to grant leave for him and the Schrecks to file guardianship
actions in any state court. In June 2022, Windsor appealed,
challenging the district court’s May 2022 order, along with the 2011
injunction order, the 2018 modification order, and a second order
from 2018. 3
Also in June 2022, in the same lawsuit, the district court
denied three more motions submitted by Windsor for leave to file
various motions “based upon the well-documented history of
frivolous filings by William Windsor and his abuse of the federal
judicial system.” In July 2022, Windsor appealed the court’s order,
The above restrictions do not apply to appeals in actions
already in existence on July 15, 2011, criminal complaints, or
petitions for protective orders the Plaintiff feels necessary to
protect his personal safety. However, any proceedings—
whether criminal or civil—initiated against any judge or
government employee for actions taken in the course of their
official duties are still enjoined according to the restrictions
outlined above.
3 At another point in 2018, the district court granted two of Windsor’s motions
for leave to file complaints, concluding the related litigation involving Windsor
and his family was “not within the scope of the persons and matters protected
by the filing restrictions.” In his 2022 appeal, Windsor appears to argue that
this second 2018 order should have modified the injunction to allow state court
filings.
USCA11 Case: 22-12038 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 01/25/2024 Page: 6 of 8
6 Opinion of the Court 22-12038
again raising additional arguments about the 2011 injunction and
the 2018 modification order.
This Court directed the clerk’s office to consolidate
Windsor’s June 2022 and July 2022 appeals. After reviewing the
parties’ responses to jurisdictional questions, we dismissed the
appeals in part for lack of jurisdiction, to the extent that Windsor
appealed from the 2011 and 2018 orders. But his appeals were
allowed to proceed as to the district court’s May 21, 2022, and June
30, 2022, orders.
After careful review, we affirm the district court’s denial of
Windsor’s two 2022 motions.
II. Discussion4
We have explained that “[a] party fails to adequately brief a
claim when he does not plainly and prominently raise it, for
instance by devoting a discrete section of his argument to those
claims.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th
Cir. 2014) (quotations omitted). Indeed, “an appellant abandons a
claim when he either makes only passing references to it or raises
4 The Judges argue we do not have subject matter jurisdiction over the May
and June 2022 orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because they were not final.
However, we previously issued jurisdictional questions directing the parties to
address whether those orders were final and whether we had jurisdiction.
After reviewing the jurisdictional responses, we concluded that the appeal
could proceed as to the May and June 2022 orders, without reserving any
issues or carrying any jurisdictional questions with the case. We see no reason
to revisit the issue.
USCA11 Case: 22-12038 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 01/25/2024 Page: 7 of 8
22-12038 Opinion of the Court 7
it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and
authority,” particularly “when [it is] ‘buried’ within [the appellant’s
main] arguments.” Id. at 681–82. “Abandonment of a claim or
issue can also occur when the passing references to it are made in
the ‘statement of the case’ or ‘summary of the argument[.]’” Id. at
681. Although “we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally,” we
nonetheless deem “issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se
litigant . . . abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th
Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). “Moreover, we do not
address arguments raised for the first time in a pro se litigant’s reply
brief.” Id.
Windsor abandons his claims relating to the 2022 orders by
failing to “plainly and prominently” address them in the argument
section of his brief. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681. Although
Windsor discusses the 2022 orders in his “statement of the case”
section, most of Windsor’s initial brief challenges the validity of
the 2011 injunction. He only asserts in passing that the May 2022
order (but not the June 2022 order) violated due process because
there was no notice or hearing. Windsor also states that “[t]hese
latest purported orders” deny him “his fundamental
[c]onstitutional right of access to the courts[.]” Otherwise,
Windsor writes in a conclusory fashion that “[a]ll orders” in the
case “must be declared void.” These statements are not enough to
challenge 2022 orders because they are “only passing references,”
lack supporting arguments, and are “buried” within his main
arguments about the injunction. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681–82. This
is true even though Windsor is a pro se litigant. See Timson, 518 F.3d
USCA11 Case: 22-12038 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 01/25/2024 Page: 8 of 8
8 Opinion of the Court 22-12038
at 874. And although Windsor discusses the 2022 orders in slightly
greater detail in his reply brief, his assertions are too little too late.
We will not consider an issue raised for the first time in a reply brief.
Id.
III. Conclusion
We conclude that Windsor abandoned his claims related to
the 2022 orders by failing to sufficiently address those orders on
appeal. Accordingly, we must affirm.
AFFIRMED.