Johnny Gregory v. Whitfield County Superior Court Judge, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-13603
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JOHNNY BRETT GREGORY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROBERT B. ADAMS,
Superior Court Judge, Whitfield County,
PAT GIDDENE,
Clerk,
AMBER WINKLER,
Civil Clerk's Office of Whitfield County,
BETTY NELSON,
Clerk of the Superior Court, Whitfield County,
MELICA KENDRICK, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 23-13603 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 1 of 7

-- 1 of 7 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13603
Superior Clerk, Whitfield County,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cv-00054-TWT
____________________
Before WILSON, J ORDAN, and L UCK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Brett Gregory, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion to reopen his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil
rights action. Mr. Gregory argues that the district judge abused his
discretion when refusing to recuse. He also argues that the district
court abused its discretion by denying his motion to reopen his
case. Finally, Mr. Gregory appears to argue that the district court
engaged in treason by acting without jurisdiction. We affirm.
I
A district judge’s decision on whether to recuse is reviewed
for an abuse of discretion. See In re Walker, 532 F.3d 1304, 1308
(11th Cir. 2008). A district judge must recuse himself “in any pro-
ceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Additionally, he must also disqualify himself
USCA11 Case: 23-13603 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 2 of 7

-- 2 of 7 --

23-13603 Opinion of the Court 3
if “he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.” See 28
U.S.C. § 455(b)(1).
Generally, the partiality “must stem from extrajudicial
sources and must be focused against a party to the proceeding.”
Hamm v. Members of Bd. of Regents of State of Fla., 708 F.2d 647, 651
(11th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). Absent evidence of pervasive
bias and prejudice, “a judge’s rulings in the same or a related case
may not serve as the basis for a recusal motion.” McWhorter v. City
of Birmingham, 906 F.2d 674, 678 (11th Cir. 1990). “Challenges to
adverse rulings are generally grounds for appeal, not recusal.” In
re Evergreen Sec., Ltd., 570 F.3d 1257, 1274 (11th Cir. 2009). In other
words, rulings adverse to a party do not constitute pervasive bias.
See Hamm, 708 F.2d at 651.
Here, the district judge did not abuse his discretion in declin-
ing to recuse, as judges have no obligation to do so where the al-
leged bias is not extrajudicial in nature. See Hamm, 708 F.2d at 651.
Mr. Gregory has provided no reason to suggest that the district
judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. See
McWhorter, 906 F.2d at 678. Adverse rulings are not evidence of
pervasive bias. See Hamm, 708 F.2d at 651.
II
We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of
discretion. See Rice v. Ford Motor Co., 88 F.3d 914, 918−19 (11th Cir.
1996). Usually, the appeal of a Rule 60(b) motion is limited to de-
termining whether the district court abused its discretion in
USCA11 Case: 23-13603 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 3 of 7

-- 3 of 7 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-13603
denying the motion, and does not extend to the validity of the un-
derlying judgment per se. See id.
Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from judgment or re-
open his case based upon the following limited circumstances: (1)
mistake or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3)
fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4)
the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been discharged; and (6)
“any other reason that justifies relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(1)−(6).
Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) “is an extraordinary remedy
which may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional circum-
stances.” Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir.
1984) (citation omitted). “The party seeking relief has the burden
of showing that absent such relief, an extreme and unexpected
hardship will result.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Mr. Gregory has failed to demonstrate any “exceptional cir-
cumstances” justifying relief. See id. at 680. Instead, by offering
baseless accusations of racism and bias against the district judge,
Mr. Gregory merely attempts to relitigate arguments raised in his
initial complaint. He does not provide a convincing reason why
his case should be reopened, or why the district court should not
have closed it to begin with.
III
Generally, issues not raised in an initial brief are considered
abandoned and will not be addressed absent extraordinary circum-
stances. See Anthony v. Georgia, 69 F.4th 796, 807 (11th Cir. 2023).
USCA11 Case: 23-13603 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 4 of 7

-- 4 of 7 --

23-13603 Opinion of the Court 5
Similarly, “an appellant abandons a claim when he either makes
only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner
without supporting arguments and authority.” Sapuppo v. Allstate
Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014).
Furthermore, although the allegations of a pro se complaint
are liberally construed, that is, held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, “this leniency does not give a
court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite
an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.”
Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168−69 (11th Cir. 2014)
(quotation marks and citation omitted). Likewise, this leniency to-
ward pro se parties does not alter the general principle that issues
not raised below are generally not considered on appeal. See Tan-
nenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
We will generally only consider exercising our discretion to
consider a newly-raised or abandoned issue when (1) the issue in-
volves a pure question of law, and refusing to consider it would
result in a miscarriage of justice; (2) the appellant did not have an
opportunity to raise the issue below; (3) the interest of substantial
justice is at stake; (4) there is no doubt as to the proper resolution;
or (5) the issue involves significant questions of general impact or
great public concern. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385
F.3d 1324, 1332 (11th Cir. 2004).
Here, Mr. Gregory’s arguments are particularly unclear and,
as such, he has abandoned them on appeal. See Anthony, 69 F.4th
at 807. See also Campbell, 760 F.3d at 1168−69. Mr. Gregory’s
USCA11 Case: 23-13603 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 5 of 7

-- 5 of 7 --

6 Opinion of the Court 23-13603
allegation of treason—a most serious allegation—is set forth in a
perfunctory manner, without the support of coherent legal argu-
ments or relevant authority. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681.
With no basis in law or fact, Mr. Gregory claims that the
district judge’s refusal to allow him to abuse the judicial process, by
serially filing meritless motions and complaints, amounts to trea-
son. The Supreme Court case that Mr. Gregory cites as authority
holds that certain federal laws violate the Constitution’s Compen-
sation Clause, and is thus not relevant to Mr. Gregory’s case. See
United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980) (holding that certain federal
laws stopping or reducing previously authorized pay increases for
federal judges violated the Constitution’s Compensation Clause).
Finally, as discussed above, Mr. Gregory’s arguments that the dis-
trict judge acted with racial bias and animus are unsupported by
the record.
IV
In addition to appealing the district court’s denial of his mo-
tion to reopen the § 1983 action, Mr. Gregory moves for appoint-
ment of a special master “to collect under a writ of seizure” assets
belonging to the defendants. “A court of appeals may appoint a
special master to hold hearings, if necessary, and to recommend
factual findings and disposition in matters ancillary to proceedings
in the court.” Fed. R. App. P. 48(a). Mr. Gregory’s application for
a writ of seizure is not an ancillary matter related to the issues
raised in his current appeal. A special master is therefore unavaila-
ble under the circumstances.
USCA11 Case: 23-13603 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 6 of 7

-- 6 of 7 --

23-13603 Opinion of the Court 7
Mr. Gregory also moves to void an interlocutory injunction
issued by the Whitfield County Superior Court in a previous civil
action. Lower federal courts, however, do not have jurisdiction to
review final judgments of state courts. See, e.g., D.C. Court of Ap-
peals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). See also Alvarez v. Att’y
Gen. for Fla., 679 F.3d 1257, 1262 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining the
“jurisdictional rule that precludes the lower federal courts from re-
viewing state court judgments”). The U.S. Supreme Court is the
only federal court with jurisdiction over such proceedings. See
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 281 (2005)
(explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 1257 “vests authority to review a state-
court judgment solely in th[at] Court”). This Court therefore lacks
jurisdiction to review the rulings of Whitfield County Superior
Court and does not have the federal appellate authority to void the
order entered against Mr. Gregory.
V
The district court’s denial of Mr. Gregory’s motion to reo-
pen his § 1983 action is AFFIRMED, and Mr. Gregory’s motion to
appoint a special master and to void a state-court injunction are
DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 23-13603 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 7 of 7

-- 7 of 7 --