Jermaine Harmon v. Anthony Rhodes, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-13805
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JERMAINE ALFONSO HARMON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FAYETTE COUNTY SHERRIF OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants,
DEPUTY CHIEF ANTHONY W. RHODES,
Individual Capacity and Official Capacity,
MAJOR CODY BENSLAY,
Individual Capacity and Official Capacity,
CAPTAIN ERIC HENKEL,
Individual Capacity and Official Capacity,
USCA11 Case: 23-13805 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 04/30/2024 Page: 1 of 7

-- 1 of 7 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13805
JOSHUA WHITMAN,
Sergeant (former) Individual Capacity and Official Capacity,
SERGEANT BRADLEY SHELTON,
Individual Capacity and Official Capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 3:23-cv-00023-TCB
____________________
Before WILSON, BRASHER , and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Harmon, a pro se Georgia prisoner, appeals the
district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his civil rights complaint
against employees of the Fayette County Jail. He argues that the
district court abused its discretion and disregarded the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure by dismissing the complaint without
reaching the merits. After careful review, we affirm.
I.
In February 2023, Harmon filed a complaint against the
Fayette County Sheriff’s Department, the Fayette County Jail, and
several of the jail’s employees in their individual and official
USCA11 Case: 23-13805 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 04/30/2024 Page: 2 of 7

-- 2 of 7 --

23-13805 Opinion of the Court 3
capacities.1 Harmon’s twenty-eight-page complaint related to his
experiences in the Fayette County Jail, where in February of 2021
he started expressing concerns with the use of infrared thermome-
ters. Harmon alleges that his request to have his temperature
taken with his wrist rather than his head led the jail to house him
in a separate part of the facility. Additional allegations include re-
moving his bedroll to aggravate underlying health conditions, re-
moving Harmon from his jail cell, feeding Harmon nutraloaf for
extended periods, and preventing Harmon from receiving dental
care or accessing legal papers until he complied with temperature
check policies.
A magistrate judge ordered Harmon to amend his com-
plaint, providing several specific instructions, including directions
to “add no more than ten pages to the form” and “clearly identify
the action or omission of the defendant(s) that shows the defend-
ant(s)’ responsibility for the alleged injury or deprivation.” Har-
mon submitted an amended complaint, omitting the jail and sher-
iff’s office as defendants but adding two additional employees as
defendants. Harmon still did not allege facts connecting a named
defendant to each alleged violation and improperly joined unre-
lated claims. Harmon also continued to include more than ten
1 Harmon listed the following individual employees in his initial complaint:
Fayette County Jail Deputy Chief Anthony Rhodes, Major Cody Benslay, Cap-
tain Eric Henkel, former Sergeant Joshua Whitman, Sergeant Bradley Shelton,
Lieutenant P. McElwaney, Detention Officer Kiara Bell, Sheriff Barry Babb,
Officer Arnold, and Officer Richardson. Harmon’s amended complaint added
Officer Huddleton, and Officer Burgess as defendants.
USCA11 Case: 23-13805 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 04/30/2024 Page: 3 of 7

-- 3 of 7 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-13805
pages with the form complaint. Because his amended complaint
did not comply with the court’s previous instructions, the magis-
trate judge ordered Harmon to amend the complaint for a second
time, with the same instructions, and a stipulation that he must se-
lect claims related to the same transaction or occurrence.
Instead of re-amending his complaint, Harmon wrote a let-
ter to the court. The magistrate judge construed the letter as a mo-
tion for an extension of time to amend and granted the motion. In
response, Harmon filed a rebuttal arguing that a liberal construc-
tion of his complaint met the notice-pleading standards. Finding
Harmon failed to meet the requirement of alleging facts connect-
ing named defendants to each deprivation and made several con-
clusory claims, the magistrate judge gave Harmon “a final oppor-
tunity to file a properly amended complaint.”
Harmon objected and repeated his assertions: the order vio-
lated his right to access the courts; there was no need to restrict
him to ten pages; his complaints arose from the same series of oc-
currences; and his complaint should be more liberally construed.
The district court responded that it has inherent power to manage
its docket and noted that Harmon’s complaints included several
claims arising from various officers’ unrelated actions. Finding that
the magistrate judge acted appropriately, the district court over-
ruled Harmon’s objections and ordered him to file an amended
complaint. Harmon again objected, which the district court con-
strued as a motion for reconsideration. For the fifth time, the dis-
trict court directed Harmon to file an amended complaint. This
USCA11 Case: 23-13805 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 04/30/2024 Page: 4 of 7

-- 4 of 7 --

23-13805 Opinion of the Court 5
order explained that the district court had authority to dismiss ac-
tions when plaintiffs do not comply with a lawful order. This order
explicitly stated that Harmon was “on notice that his failure to
comply with the Court’s order could result in the dismissal of this
action.”
Rather than amend his complaint, Harmon once again ob-
jected to the order on the same grounds. The district court once
again construed Harmon’s objection as a motion for reconsidera-
tion, which it denied as successive. The court dismissed the case
without prejudice under Northern District of Georgia Local Rule
41.3(A)(2) because the court had ordered Harmon to amend his
complaint five times, which he refused to do. Harmon timely ap-
pealed.
II.
We review a district court’s decision to dismiss a case for
failure to comply with a court order for abuse of discretion.
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th
Cir. 2015). A district court may dismiss a complaint under its in-
herent power to control its own docket. Id. Dismissal is generally
not an abuse of discretion in response to a disregarded order when
the litigant has been warned. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837
(11th Cir. 1989).
Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
counseled pleadings and are construed liberally. Campbell v. Air
Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). “Despite construc-
tion leniency afforded pro se litigants, we nevertheless have
USCA11 Case: 23-13805 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 04/30/2024 Page: 5 of 7

-- 5 of 7 --

6 Opinion of the Court 23-13805
required them to conform to procedural rules.” Loren v. Sasser, 309
F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam); see also Moon, 863 F.2d
at 837.
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A plaintiff generally may bring multiple claims
against a single party but may join multiple defendants only if the
right asserted against them arises from “the same transaction, oc-
currence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and if “any ques-
tion of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the ac-
tion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dis-
missing Harmon’s complaint. Even as a pro se litigant, Harmon
was obligated to follow the court’s rules and orders. See Moon, 863
F.2d at 837. Both his initial and first amended complaint violated
the federal rules by alleging a variety of often unrelated claims
against different officers. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). He also failed to
comply with the magistrate judge’s direction to add no more than
ten pages to the form complaint. Even under the liberal construc-
tion Harmon is entitled to receive, his first amended complaint was
improper. See Loren, 309 F.3d at 1304.
Rather than re-amend the complaint as ordered, Harmon
wrote several letters disagreeing with the magistrate judge and the
district court. Each time, the magistrate judge and district court
construed these letters as various motions, and their orders reiter-
ated instructions to help Harmon file his complaint in accordance
USCA11 Case: 23-13805 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 04/30/2024 Page: 6 of 7

-- 6 of 7 --

23-13805 Opinion of the Court 7
with procedural rules. The district court gave Harmon clear guid-
ance and granted reasonable extensions to its deadlines. See Moon,
863 F.3d at 837. Further, the district court explained that it had
authority to dismiss actions for failure to comply with a lawful or-
der and put Harmon on notice that failure to comply with its orders
“could result in dismissal of the action.” No instructions led Har-
mon to file a complaint that adhered to the parameters proposed
by the district court. Ultimately, the district court did not abuse its
discretion by dismissing Harmon’s case without prejudice.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 23-13805 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 04/30/2024 Page: 7 of 7

-- 7 of 7 --