James Lee Ballard v. John Lyon Broling, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12651
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JAMES LEE BALLARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN LYON BROLING,
Assistant Regional Counselor,
CANDACE KAYE BROWER,
Regional Counselor,
DAVID KREIDER,
Alachua County Judge,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12651 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 10/16/2023 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12651
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-00104-AW-MJF
____________________
Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM , and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
State pretrial detainee James Lee Ballard, proceeding pro se,
appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil
rights complaint. After review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 10, 2022, Ballard sued Defendant-Appellees John
Lyon Broling, Candace Kaye Brower, and Judge David Kreider for
violating his constitutional rights under § 1983. Broling was Bal-
lard’s appointed counsel in his criminal prosecution, Brower was
regional defense counsel, and Judge Kreider was the presiding state
judge. Ballard alleged that Broling retaliated against Ballard, result-
ing in malicious prosecution, and Brower and Judge Kreider know-
ingly enabled Broling’s actions, participating in a conspiracy to vi-
olate Ballard’s constitutional rights. Ballard also moved to proceed
in forma pauperis. A magistrate judge reviewed the complaint un-
der 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and issued a report and recommendation
(R&R).
USCA11 Case: 22-12651 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 10/16/2023 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

22-12651 Opinion of the Court 3
The magistrate judge concluded that Ballard’s complaint
should be dismissed 1) on Younger1 abstention grounds; 2) under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted because the claims seek monetary damages
against defendants who are immune from such relief; and 3) for
abuse of the judicial process for Ballard’s failure to disclose his liti-
gation history on his complaint form. The district court dismissed
Ballard’s complaint without prejudice for abuse of the judicial pro-
cess, adopting the R&R to the extent it was consistent with the or-
der. The district court did not reach a decision on the merits for
the first two issues. Ballard timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
We review sanctions imposed pursuant to § 1915 under an
abuse of discretion standard. See Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610,
612 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). Although pro se pleadings may
be liberally construed, a plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse mis-
takes regarding procedural rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S.
106, 113 (1993). A dismissal without prejudice will generally not be
held as an abuse of discretion because the affected party retains the
opportunity to refile. See Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 720
F.2d 1495, 1499 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
1 Federal courts will not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions except un-
der extraordinary circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971).
USCA11 Case: 22-12651 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 10/16/2023 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-12651
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
Ballard’s claim without prejudice. Ballard used a complaint form,
and under “Prior Litigation,” it asked the following question:
B. Have you filed other lawsuits in either state or federal
court dealing with the same facts or issue involved in
this case?
In response to this question, Ballard replied “no,” stating “[t]his is
the same criminal case but separate issues and defendants.”
Contrary to Ballard’s response, the R&R noted that since
January 4, 2022, Ballard had filed six civil rights lawsuits in the
Northern District of Florida, each with issues and facts that over-
lapped with this case. Regardless of whether his response to the
question was knowing or intentional, Ballard failed to accurately
disclose his other litigation—and failed to do so under oath. The
district court was entitled to find this failure an abuse of the judicial
process. Furthermore, because the district court dismissed Bal-
lard’s complaint without prejudice, the dismissal was not an abuse
of discretion. See Dynes, 720 F.2d at 1499.
III. C ONCLUSION
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
Ballard’s complaint without prejudice.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-12651 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 10/16/2023 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --