James Nathaniel Douse v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-13499
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JAMES NATHANIEL DOUSE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DELTA AIR LINES INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-00018-TWT
____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-13499 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 10/12/2023 Page: 1 of 16

-- 1 of 16 --

2 Opinion of the Court 21-13499
Before J ORDAN, BRANCH , and J ULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff in this pro se action asserts personal injury claims
arising out of a December 2020 Delta flight from Atlanta to Tampa
that experienced a mid-flight engine failure. Plaintiff, a passenger
on the flight, claims in his complaint that the engine failure exacer-
bated his preexisting medical conditions and otherwise caused him
emotional distress. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s com-
plaint after finding that Plaintiff had failed to cooperate in discov-
ery, and Plaintiff appealed. After a careful review of the record and
the briefing submitted by the parties, we find no error in the district
court’s ruling and we therefore AFFIRM the dismissal.
Plaintiff has filed several motions in connection with his ap-
peal, including a motion to supplement the record, motions for a
writ of execution and a writ of garnishment, a motion for enforce-
ment of summary judgment and for final judgment, and a motion
for summary judgment. There is no basis for granting the relief
requested by Plaintiff in any of these motions, and we DENY them.
Defendant, in response to Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the rec-
ord, has filed a motion for sanctions. Although we agree with De-
fendant that Plaintiff’s motion to supplement is unfounded, we de-
cline to impose sanctions on Plaintiff given his pro se status. Ac-
cordingly, we DENY Defendant’s motion for sanctions.
USCA11 Case: 21-13499 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 10/12/2023 Page: 2 of 16

-- 2 of 16 --

21-13499 Opinion of the Court 3
BACKGROUND
On December 21, 2020, Plaintiff was a passenger on Defend-
ant Delta Air Lines, Inc.’s Flight 1283 from Atlanta to Tampa. Ac-
cording to Plaintiff, the engine on the plane in which he was trav-
eling that day burst into flames ten or fifteen minutes into the
flight. Although the pilot was able to land safely, Plaintiff claims
the engine malfunction sent the plane “into total[] chaos” and was
terrifying for him and the other passengers onboard.
Plaintiff subsequently filed the complaint in this case, assert-
ing claims sounding generally in negligence, products liability, and
reckless endangerment. As best we can understand Plaintiff’s alle-
gations, he asserts in the complaint that Defendant violated FAA
directives by incorrectly installing composite parts into, and im-
properly modifying, the plane operating Flight 1283 on the day of
the incident. He claims further that these errors, which allegedly
resulted in a defective plane, were caused by Defendant’s financial
and COVID-related cutbacks in maintenance personnel.
Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the incident on Flight
1283 caused him mental anguish, trauma, and anxiety, conditions
he suggests could induce a heart attack. Plaintiff includes in the
complaint a section titled “facts” in which he ostensibly moves for
summary judgment on his claims. At the conclusion of the com-
plaint, he requests $1 million in damages plus $4000 in attorney’s
fees, even though he is proceeding pro se.
Defendant admitted in its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint
that it operated Flight 1283 from Atlanta to Tampa on December
USCA11 Case: 21-13499 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 10/12/2023 Page: 3 of 16

-- 3 of 16 --

4 Opinion of the Court 21-13499
21, 2020, and that the plane on that flight experienced an engine
malfunction. Defendant denied the rest of Plaintiff’s allegations
and asserted several affirmative defenses.
The parties subsequently submitted a joint preliminary re-
port and discovery plan, in which Plaintiff claimed the engine mal-
function during his December 2020 Delta flight exacerbated nu-
merous preexisting conditions, including seizures, major depres-
sion, and sleep apnea. The parties agreed in the joint preliminary
report that the following issues were within the scope of discovery:
facts and documents related to Plaintiff’s claims and alleged dam-
ages, party depositions, and Plaintiff’s preexisting medical condi-
tions.
The district court approved the joint preliminary report and
set the discovery deadline in the case for July 22, 2021.
Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed a document designated a
“motion to file part of the record under seal.” Plaintiff stated in this
document that he had conferred with defense counsel and deter-
mined that counsel wanted copies of his medical records regarding
his preexisting medical conditions. Plaintiff indicated that he had
signed authorizations for a neurologist, an ENT, and a psychiatrist
to release his medical records and that he believed those records
had been sent to defense counsel. However, Plaintiff did not iden-
tify in his filing any specific documents he wanted sealed.1 The
1 Plaintiff also advised the district court in this document that he was willing
to settle the case for $800,000. Plaintiff later withdrew this offer.
USCA11 Case: 21-13499 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 10/12/2023 Page: 4 of 16

-- 4 of 16 --

21-13499 Opinion of the Court 5
district court conditionally denied Plaintiff’s motion, noting that it
was not clear what documents or part of the record Plaintiff
wanted to seal.
Defendant initiated discovery in the case on May 11, 2021,
by serving Plaintiff with its first set of interrogatories and a request
to produce documents relevant to the topics of discovery identified
in the joint preliminary report. Defendant also asked Plaintiff by
letter on May 25, 2021, to provide dates on which his deposition
could be taken. Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s interrogatories
and request for production of documents was due no later than
June 12, 2021, but Plaintiff missed that deadline, and in fact, Plain-
tiff never responded to Defendant’s interrogatories or request for
documents. Instead, Plaintiff filed a document that was titled a
“motion for summary judgment,” but that did not include any legal
argument or factual basis upon which summary judgment could be
granted.
Plaintiff submitted a statement of material facts in support
of his summary judgment motion, but the facts set out there did
not shed any light on the basis for the motion. Instead, the factual
statement merely restated the claims asserted in the complaint:
that the plane operating Plaintiff’s Delta flight on December 21,
2020, was defective, that Defendant had violated FAA regulations
and created a hazardous condition on the flight, and that the engine
malfunction that occurred during the flight had aggravated Plain-
tiff’s preexisting conditions. Plaintiff stated in his summary judg-
ment motion that medical records from a neurologist, an ENT, and
USCA11 Case: 21-13499 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 10/12/2023 Page: 5 of 16

-- 5 of 16 --

6 Opinion of the Court 21-13499
psychiatrist were “faxed . . . as [p]roof of [his] [m]edical condition.”
But he added that his “personal medical records” and “personal
health information” should not be released without his express
consent or written permission.
Around the same time as he filed his summary judgment
motion, Plaintiff also filed a motion for a protective order and an
“objection” to Defendant’s service of discovery. In the motion for
a protective order, Plaintiff again stated that he had signed a release
authorizing three doctors to send Defendant medical records re-
lated to his injury on the December 2020 Delta flight. He then cited
a procedural rule explaining when a court is authorized to enter a
protective order, but he did not explain why this rule applied to his
case or what material he sought to protect by the order.
In his objection, Plaintiff represented that his “accident re-
lated” medical records had been faxed directly to defense counsel.
As to interrogatories, Plaintiff argued—without providing any legal
support—that interrogatories were not necessary because Defend-
ant had objected to trying his case before a magistrate judge. Plain-
tiff stated further—and again, without legal support—that discov-
ery was limited to “nonprivileged information” specifically ap-
proved by the court and related to the December 2020 incident.
Finally, citing Federal Rule 26 regarding the scope of discovery and
Federal Rule 31 governing written interrogatories, Plaintiff argued
that Defendant’s discovery requests covered “privileged” infor-
mation and were otherwise unreasonable, and that any discovery
USCA11 Case: 21-13499 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 10/12/2023 Page: 6 of 16

-- 6 of 16 --

21-13499 Opinion of the Court 7
of medical records in the case should be limited to the records al-
ready sent to defense counsel.
In its response to Plaintiff’s motion for protective order and
objection, Defendant correctly pointed out that permissible discov-
ery in a case is unrelated to the decision whether to try the case
before a magistrate judge, that Plaintiff had not identified what
parts of the requested discovery he claimed were privileged or un-
reasonable, and that there was no basis for limiting discovery of
Plaintiff’s medical records to records related to the December 2020,
incident. Presumably based on the grounds set forth in Defend-
ant’s response, the district court denied Plaintiff’s motion and ob-
jection. The court also denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judg-
ment, noting in its written order that the motion lacked any sub-
stantive legal argument and failed to identify any claim or defense
for which Plaintiff was seeking summary judgment as required by
the federal rules.
On June 21, 2021, the day before discovery was set to expire
per the scheduling order, Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter pursuant
to Federal Rule 37 informing him that his responses to discovery
were past due, and that he had failed to provide any dates on which
his deposition could be taken. Defendant advised Plaintiff in the
letter that if he did not respond within ten days, it would file a mo-
tion to compel and for sanctions. The following day, Defendant
moved to extend the discovery period. Defendant acknowledged
in its motion that it had received some of Plaintiff’s medical records
per a signed release submitted by Plaintiff, but it noted that Plaintiff
USCA11 Case: 21-13499 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 10/12/2023 Page: 7 of 16

-- 7 of 16 --

8 Opinion of the Court 21-13499
had not otherwise responded to its interrogatories, request for pro-
duction of documents, or request to provide deposition dates. De-
fendant stated further that it had diligently pursued discovery in the
case without the cooperation of Plaintiff, who instead of participat-
ing in discovery had filed a series of baseless motions.
When Plaintiff failed to respond to the Rule 37 letter, De-
fendant, as promised, filed a motion to compel and for sanctions.
In support of its motion, Defendant stated that: (1) the parties had
agreed in the joint preliminary report that Defendant would need
discovery as to the documents, facts, and evidence regarding Plain-
tiff’s claims and preexisting medical conditions and that such dis-
covery would involve Plaintiff’s deposition, (2) Plaintiff had failed
to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests and refused to pro-
vide a date for his deposition, and (3) Defendant had sent Plaintiff
a letter on June 21, 2021, advising him that his responses to discov-
ery were past due, that he had failed to provide any dates for his
deposition, and that a motion to compel and for sanctions would
be forthcoming if Plaintiff did not respond in ten days. Defendant
argued in its motion that Plaintiff’s refusal to participate or cooper-
ate in discovery was willful and in bad faith. Accordingly, Defend-
ant asked in its motion that the court compel Plaintiff to respond
and order sanctions up to and including dismissal of Plaintiff’s com-
plaint.
Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s motion to extend
the discovery period or to its motion to compel discovery and im-
pose sanctions. Instead, Plaintiff filed a motion for the district court
USCA11 Case: 21-13499 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 10/12/2023 Page: 8 of 16

-- 8 of 16 --

21-13499 Opinion of the Court 9
to reconsider its denial of his motion for summary judgment. In
support of the motion to reconsider, Plaintiff essentially restated
the claims asserted in his complaint. After restating his claims,
Plaintiff briefly addressed the discovery issues, arguing as he had in
past filings that the scope of the discovery requested by Defendant
was unreasonable and that Delta was only entitled to medical rec-
ords one year prior to the December 2020 incident.2
The district court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsidera-
tion, noting that reconsideration was only warranted when there
was an intervening change in the law, new evidence, or the need
to correct a clear error. According to the court, none of those con-
ditions were met here. The court then granted Defendant’s mo-
tion to compel and for sanctions. As a sanction, the court dismissed
Plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that Plaintiff had “totally re-
fused to cooperate in the discovery process.”
Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his complaint. In his appel-
late brief, Plaintiff focuses primarily on the merits of the claims as-
serted in his complaint. For example, Plaintiff describes the fright-
ening nature of a mid-flight engine failure, and he attributes the
engine failure that occurred on his December 2020 Delta flight to
Defendant’s negligence and its COVID-related and financially mo-
tivated layoffs. Continuing in this vein, Plaintiff repeats his request
for summary judgment, and he attaches a copy of the motion for
summary judgment and statement of material facts he filed below.
2 Plaintiff also complained about defense counsel’s use of vacation time and
suggested without any basis or rationale that Defendant should be sanctioned.
USCA11 Case: 21-13499 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 10/12/2023 Page: 9 of 16

-- 9 of 16 --

10 Opinion of the Court 21-13499
As noted above, the district court did not dismiss Plaintiff’s com-
plaint on the merits, but rather on the ground that Plaintiff failed
to participate in discovery. Plaintiff’s merits arguments are thus
irrelevant to this appeal, and we will not address them further.3
Briefly addressing the basis for the district court’s ruling be-
low, Plaintiff argues in his appellate brief that the court erred when
it found he had refused to participate in discovery. In support of
that argument, Plaintiff states that he signed a release indicating
that three years of medical records could be submitted to Defend-
ant, and he notes that he filed a motion to submit other medical
records to the court under seal, which the court denied. Plaintiff
cites several exhibits that purportedly support his argument, in-
cluding his motion to file records under seal and a small collection
of records Plaintiff claims were submitted to Defendant.
As discussed further below, we find nothing in the record to
support Plaintiff’s claim of error. On the contrary, it is apparent
from the record that Plaintiff repeatedly and willfully failed to com-
ply with his discovery obligations under Rule 26. Regarding his
motion to file records under seal, we agree with the district court
that the motion was due to be denied because it was not supported
by any facts or legal argument that would have warranted sealing
the records. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order
3 Similarly irrelevant is Plaintiff’s discussion about the fact that Delta refused
to consent to trial of the case by a magistrate judge. Because this discussion
has no bearing on the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for
failure to cooperate in discovery, we do not address it further.
USCA11 Case: 21-13499 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 10/12/2023 Page: 10 of 16

-- 10 of 16 --

21-13499 Opinion of the Court 11
dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint due to his refusal to cooperate in
discovery.
DISCUSSION
I. Pending Motions
We note as an initial matter that Plaintiff has on appeal con-
tinued his practice of filing motions that are legally and factually
groundless and procedurally unauthorized. For example, shortly
after he initiated the appeal, Plaintiff filed a motion to supplement
the record on appeal with evidence of his preexisting conditions
and their aggravation by the incident during his December 2020
Delta flight. “We rarely supplement the record to include material
that was not before the district court, but we have the equitable
power to do so if it is in the interests of justice.” Schwartz v. Millon
Air, Inc., 341 F.3d 1220, 1225 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003). Supplementation
is not in the interests of justice here, because the evidence Plaintiff
seeks to introduce is irrelevant to our review of the district court’s
order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint. Again, that order was not
based on Plaintiff’s medical condition but rather on Plaintiff’s re-
fusal to cooperate in the discovery process. Accordingly, we DENY
Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the record.
Plaintiff also has filed a motion for “enforcement of sum-
mary judgment” and a separate motion for summary judgment
asking the Court to grant final judgment in his favor. It is unclear
whether Plaintiff is making a new request for summary judgment
or is arguing that his summary judgment motion in the district
court should have been granted. Either way, his motions for
USCA11 Case: 21-13499 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 10/12/2023 Page: 11 of 16

-- 11 of 16 --

12 Opinion of the Court 21-13499
summary judgment must be denied. Like the similar motion Plain-
tiff filed below, the motions he has filed on appeal seeking sum-
mary judgment are not supported by any legal argument or facts
suggesting summary judgment is warranted. Contrary to Plain-
tiff’s assertion in his motions, he received no final judgment from
the district court, and this Court does not consider new motions
for summary judgment on appeal. Accordingly, we DENY Plain-
tiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Finally, we DENY Plaintiff’s motion for a writ of garnish-
ment and his motion for a writ of execution because there is no
basis for those motions and likewise no final judgment in Plaintiff’s
favor as he argues on appeal. To the extent Plaintiff intended to
assert a motion in the “notice” he filed with the Court seeking a $1
million award of damages against Defendant, we also DENY any
such motion because it is not supported by the facts or law cited
therein.
In response to Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the record
on appeal, Defendant filed a motion for sanctions against Plaintiff.
We agree with Defendant that Plaintiff’s motions described above
lack any factual or legal basis. Nevertheless, given Plaintiff’s pro se
status, we decline to impose sanctions against him at this time and
thus DENY Defendant’s motion. See Woods v. IRS, 3 F.3d 403, 404
(11th Cir. 1993) (declining to impose sanctions on a pro se plaintiff
although his appeal clearly was frivolous).
USCA11 Case: 21-13499 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 10/12/2023 Page: 12 of 16

-- 12 of 16 --

21-13499 Opinion of the Court 13
II. Dismissal for Failure to Participate in Discovery
A. Standard of Review
The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule 37(b), which authorizes a court to issue “just orders”
in response to a party’s failure to provide or permit discovery, up
to and including an order “dismissing the action or proceeding in
whole or in part.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). We review such an
order for an abuse of discretion. See Consumer Fin. Protection Bureau
v. Brown, 69 F.4th 1321, 1329 (11th Cir. 2023). A district court has
broad authority to impose Rule 37 sanctions, including dismissal in
an appropriate case. See id. The court’s “wide discretion” in this
area is warranted because the decision as to whether a party’s ac-
tions in a case merit sanctions “is heavily dependent on the court’s
firsthand knowledge, experience, and observation.” Id. (quotation
marks omitted). Nevertheless, the court abuses its discretion if it
“applies an incorrect legal standard, fails to follow the appropriate
procedures when making the relevant determination, or makes
findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” Id.
As a pro se litigant, Plaintiff’s pleadings “are held to a less
stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will,
therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148
F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). However, 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 ac-
tion.” GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th
USCA11 Case: 21-13499 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 10/12/2023 Page: 13 of 16

-- 13 of 16 --

14 Opinion of the Court 21-13499
Cir. 1998) (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
B. Analysis
Again, Federal Rule 37 authorizes the district court to im-
pose sanctions up to and including the dismissal of an action if a
party “fails . . . to provide or permit discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(b). Dismissal “is considered a sanction of last resort, applicable
only in extreme circumstances.” Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533,
1535 (11th Cir. 1985). It is not justified by discovery violations
“caused by simple negligence, misunderstanding, or inability to
comply[.]” Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536, 1542
(11th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, “dismissal may be appropriate
when a plaintiff’s recalcitrance is due to willfulness [or] bad faith[.]”
Phipps v. Blakeney, 8 F.3d 788, 790 (11th Cir. 1993). See also Consumer
Fin. Prot. Bureau, 69 F.4th at 1332 (affirming the district court’s dis-
missal of a party’s claims under Rule 37(b) where the party was
“determined to avoid [Rule] 30(b)(6) depositions”). Moreover, if a
party shows “a flagrant disregard for the court and the discovery
process,” dismissal is not an abuse of discretion. Aztec Steel Co. v.
Florida Steel Corp., 691 F.2d 480, 481 (11th Cir. 1982). A pro se litigant
who ignores his discovery obligations is subject to sanctions like
any other litigant. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.
1989).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dis-
missed Plaintiff’s complaint here, given Plaintiff’s complete refusal
to participate or cooperate in the discovery process. As discussed,
USCA11 Case: 21-13499 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 10/12/2023 Page: 14 of 16

-- 14 of 16 --

21-13499 Opinion of the Court 15
Plaintiff agreed in the joint preliminary report to provide discovery
on several topics, including the facts surrounding his claims, his al-
leged injuries, and his preexisting conditions, and he further agreed
that such discovery would include his deposition. Nevertheless,
when served with interrogatories and document requests related
to these topics, Plaintiff failed to respond and unilaterally decided
no response was required beyond providing a few records from
three of his medical providers. He also refused to provide dates for
his deposition despite several requests by Defendant.
Indeed, instead of responding to Defendant’s legitimate dis-
covery requests or at the very least providing a date when he could
be deposed, Plaintiff repeatedly submitted filings to the court ob-
jecting to his need to participate in discovery and requesting sum-
mary judgment on his claims. Plaintiff’s submissions provided no
rationale for objecting to the discovery that he had previously
agreed to provide in the joint preliminary report and that is re-
quired by Federal Rule 26 and standard in civil litigation. As for
Plaintiff’s summary judgment motions, they failed to assert any
ground upon which summary judgment could conceivably be
granted.
When Defendant advised Plaintiff by letter that his discov-
ery responses were overdue and gave him ten days to respond,
Plaintiff simply ignored the letter. Plaintiff likewise failed to re-
spond to Defendant’s motion to compel and for sanctions that re-
sulted in the dismissal of his complaint. Instead, Plaintiff again sub-
mitted a baseless motion—this time, for reconsideration of the
USCA11 Case: 21-13499 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 10/12/2023 Page: 15 of 16

-- 15 of 16 --

16 Opinion of the Court 21-13499
court’s denial of his summary judgment motion—that was irrele-
vant to the issue at hand. Under the circumstances, the district
court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Plaintiff’s
recalcitrant refusal to comply with his discovery obligations
demonstrated willfulness and bad faith rather than negligence or
inability to comply, and that dismissal of his complaint under Rule
37 was thus warranted. See Aztec Steel Co., 691 F.2d at 481.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s
order dismissing this action under Federal Rule 37(b) due to Plain-
tiff’s failure to participate or cooperate in discovery. We DENY all
the Plaintiff’s motions filed in this court, including his motion to
supplement the record on appeal, motions for a writ of execution
and a writ of garnishment, motion for enforcement of summary
judgment and for final judgment, and motion for summary judg-
ment. We also DENY Defendant’s motion for sanctions.
USCA11 Case: 21-13499 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 10/12/2023 Page: 16 of 16

-- 16 of 16 --