Antonio R. Davis v. Fort Lauderdale Police Department (Internal Affairs), et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10034
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
ANTONIO R. DAVIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FORT LAUDERDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT (INTERNAL
AFFAIRS),
MARDIE LEVEY COHEN,
( Judge),
CHARLES M. GREENE,
( Judge),
HENRI SAINT JEAN,
#1647,
LUC VAVAL,
USCA11 Case: 23-10034 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 02/12/2024 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10034
#2065, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:22-cv-60769-RS
____________________
Before J ORDAN , L UCK , and L AGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Davis appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the Fort Lauderdale Police
Department (“FLPD”), several officers and employees of the
FLPD, and two state court judges for failure to state a claim under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and as deficient under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and denying his motion to proceed in forma pau-
peris. Davis argues on appeal that the district court erred in dis-
missing his complaint for failure to state a claim and abused its dis-
cretion in dismissing his complaint as deficient under Rule 8(a).
We review a district court’s dismissal of an in forma pauperis
action for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) using the
same standard as when reviewing a dismissal under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), that is, de novo and viewing the allegations
USCA11 Case: 23-10034 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 02/12/2024 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

23-10034 Opinion of the Court 3
in the complaint as true. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490
(11th Cir. 1997). We review dismissals under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)
under the abuse-of-discretion standard. Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty.
Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015). We give “liberal
construction to the pleadings of pro se litigants, [but] ‘we neverthe-
less [require] them to conform to procedural rules.’” Albra v. Advan,
Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Loren v. Sasser, 309
F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002)).
When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the district court
“shall dismiss the case at any time if [it] determines that” the action
“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). “A complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to
state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show the plaintiff is
not entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
It is within “the district court’s inherent authority to control its
docket and ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits, which in
some circumstances includes the power to dismiss a complaint for
failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2).” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1320. A
dismissal under Rule 8(a)(2) “is appropriate where ‘it is virtually im-
possible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support
which claim(s) for relief.’” Id. at 1325 (emphasis in original) (quot-
ing Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364,
366 (11th Cir. 1996)).
USCA11 Case: 23-10034 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 02/12/2024 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-10034
“Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides every person with the right
to sue those acting under color of state law for violations of federal
constitutional and statutory provisions.” Williams v. Bd. of Regents
of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282, 1299 (11th Cir. 2007). A police
department generally is not a legal entity that is subject to suit un-
der § 1983, but capacity to be sued is determined by the law of the
state in which the district court is located. Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d
1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)). Under Flor-
ida law, a police department does not have the capacity to be sued.
Fla. City Police Dep’t v. Corcoran, 661 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct.
App. 1995). Moreover, “[j]udges are entitled to absolute judicial im-
munity from damages for those acts taken while they are acting in
their judicial capacity unless they acted in the ‘clear absence of all
jurisdiction.’” Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2002) (in-
ternal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435
U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978)). “This immunity applies even when the
judge’s acts are in error, malicious, or were in excess of his or her
jurisdiction.” Id.
“Where a more carefully drafted complaint might state a
claim, a plaintiff must be given at least one chance to amend the
complaint before the district court dismisses the action with preju-
dice.” Bank v. Pitt, 928 F.2d 1108, 1112 (11th Cir. 1991), overruled in
part by Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp., 314 F.3d 541, 542
(11th Cir. 2002) (holding that “[a] district court is not required to
grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the
plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, never filed a motion to
amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court.”).
USCA11 Case: 23-10034 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 02/12/2024 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

23-10034 Opinion of the Court 5
However, “if a more carefully drafted complaint could not state a
claim . . . , dismissal with prejudice is proper.” Id. A dismissal for
failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is a dismissal on the
merits and with prejudice. White v. Lemma, 947 F.3d 1373, 1376-77
(11th Cir. 2020), receded from on other grounds by Wells v. Brown, 58
F.4th 1347 (11th Cir. 2023).
Here, we conclude that the district court did not err in dis-
missing Davis’s complaint for failure to state a claim, and it did not
abuse its discretion in dismissing it as deficient under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a). But we conclude that the district court did err by dismissing
Davis’s complaint with prejudice without first providing him an
opportunity to amend as to all defendants except for the Fort
Lauderdale Police Department itself and Judges Mardi Cohen and
Charles Greene because police departments are not subject to suit
under § 1983, and judges are entitled to absolute immunity while
acting in their judicial capacity.
We thus affirm the district court’s order dismissing the com-
plaint with respect to defendants FLPD, Judge Greene and Judge
Davis, but vacate and remand for further proceedings with respect
to all other defendants.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN
PART.
USCA11 Case: 23-10034 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 02/12/2024 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --