Geoffrey H. Anderson v. Sharon Traxler

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APR 19, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-15678
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 09-00135-CV-4-RH-WCS
GEOFFREY H. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JUSTIN WARD,
JOEL REMLAND,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(April 19, 2010)
Before BLACK, HULL and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 3 --

Geoffrey H. Anderson, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the sua
sponte dismissal of his action for violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986,
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for failure to
amend his complaint in compliance with the magistrate judge’s orders. The judge
twice ordered Anderson to file an amended complaint setting forth sufficient facts
to support his allegations and also ordered Anderson to file an amended complaint
in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). After Anderson failed
to follow these orders, his case was dismissed. Anderson contends his complaint
was improperly dismissed because it contained sufficient factual allegations to
support his claims.
We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. See Douglas v. Yates, 535 F.3d 1316, 1319–20 (11th
Cir. 2008). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a plaintiff must file a complaint containing
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citations
and internal quotations omitted). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. Although
2

-- 2 of 3 --

courts liberally construe pro se pleadings, they are not required to “rewrite an
otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” GJR Inv. v. County of
Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998).
The district court did not err by dismissing Anderson’s complaint for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Anderson’s complaint relies
almost entirely on conclusory statements and does not provide the type of factual
support required under Rule 8(a)(2). Even accepting the complaint’s factual
allegations as true, such allegations were not sufficient to allow the district court to
draw a reasonable inference that Appellees engaged in a retaliatory conspiracy.
Accordingly, we affirm.1
AFFIRMED.
Because dismissal was warranted under Rule 8(a)(2), we need not address whether the1
district court also could have dismissed Anderson’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with the magistrate judge’s orders.
3

-- 3 of 3 --