Mohammad Sharifi v. District Attorney of Madison County

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12396
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
MOHAMMAD SHARIFI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF MADISON COUNTY,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-00157-KD-B
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12396 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12396
Before J ILL PRYOR , NEWSOM , and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Mohammad Sharifi, an Alabama state prisoner proceeding
pro se, appeals the sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 com-
plaint as frivolous and malicious under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), 1915A(b)(1). After careful review, we affirm.
Because the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them here
only as necessary to decide the case.
We hold pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard and will
liberally construe them. Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165,
1168 (11th Cir. 2014). However, an appellant abandons an issue by
failing to challenge it on appeal. See Irwin v. Hawk, 40 F.3d 347, 347
n.1 (11th Cir. 1994) (applying this abandonment rule to a pro se liti-
gant). An appellant also abandons an issue on appeal where he pre-
sents it only in “passing references” or “in a perfunctory manner
without supporting arguments and authority.” Sapuppo v. Allstate
Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014). “[S]imply stat-
ing that an issue exists,” without providing reasoning and citation
to authority that the appellant relies on, “constitutes abandonment
of that issue.” Id. (quoting Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275,
1278 (11th Cir. 2009)).
We may exercise our discretion to consider a forfeited issue
if:
(1) the issue involves a pure question of law and re-
fusal to consider it would result in a miscarriage of
USCA11 Case: 23-12396 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-12396 Opinion of the Court 3
justice; (2) the party lacked an opportunity to raise
the issue at the district court level; (3) the interest of
substantial justice is at stake; (4) the proper resolution
is beyond any doubt; or (5) the issue presents signifi-
cant questions of general impact or of great public
concern.
United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir.) (en banc), cert.
denied, 143 S. Ct. 95 (2022).
Here, Sharifi has abandoned any purported challenge to the
district court’s dismissal of his case. Even when construing his brief
liberally, Sharifi failed to challenge any basis of the district court’s
dismissal of his case. See Irwin, 40 F.3d at 347 n.1; Sapuppo, 739 F.3d
at 681. Rather than argue that he was not relitigating a pending
case or that §§ 1915 and 1915A in any way did not apply to him,
Sharifi simply repeats his theory that he was wronged by Broussard
and others for their alleged improprieties related to his criminal
conviction. Thus, Sharifi has abandoned any challenge to the dis-
trict court’s dismissal of his complaint. See Irwin, 40 F.3d at 347 n.1;
Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681. Although this Court may exercise its dis-
cretion to consider forfeited issues, none of the exceptions to the
usual forfeiture rule apply to Sharifi’s appeal. See Campbell, 26 F.4th
at 873.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 23-12396 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --