Kimberly Brinson v. Secetary, Department of Corrections, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10043
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:15-cv-00279-WTH-PRL
KIMBERLY BRINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
each in their individual and official capacities,
MICHAEL CREWS,
Former Secretary, Department of Corrections,
each in their individual and official capacities,
FNU MUNNERLYN,
Inspector, each in their individual and official capacities,
T. POYNTER,
Assistant Warden, each in their individual and official capacities,
FNU POOLE,
Assistant Warden, each in their individual and official capacities, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Case: 16-10043 Date Filed: 11/06/2017 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(November 6, 2017)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kimberly Brinson, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of her complaint alleging various constitutional and statutory
claims against more than thirty Florida Department of Corrections officials.
The district court dismissed her complaint on two independent grounds. First, the
court ruled that Brinson abused the judicial process by deliberately failing to
disclose an earlier lawsuit relating to her prison conditions, despite certifying in her
complaint that no such lawsuits existed. Second, the court ruled that Brinson’s
sprawling, scattershot complaint did not comply with several Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure: Rule 8(a)(2)’s requirement that a pleading contain a “short and
plain statement of the claim”; Rule 10(b)’s requirement that parties state their
claims in “numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of
circumstances”; and Rule 12(b)(6)’s requirement that a complaint state plausible
claims for relief. This is Brinson’s appeal.
Case: 16-10043 Date Filed: 11/06/2017 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, “issues not briefed on appeal
by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870,
874 (11th Cir. 2008). “To obtain reversal of a district court judgment that is based
on multiple, independent grounds, an appellant must convince us that every stated
ground for the judgment against [her] is incorrect.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian
Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014).
Brinson’s brief, liberally construed, essentially restates the allegations in her
complaint and fails to address either of the district court’s independent grounds for
dismissing her complaint. Although she states that the district court overlooked
her lack of legal skills in dismissing the complaint, that passing reference is not
enough to challenge the district court’s abuse of process ruling. See id. (“We have
long held that an appellant abandons a claim when [s]he either makes only passing
references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments
and authority.”). And Brinson’s brief makes no attempt to challenge the ruling that
her complaint failed to satisfy Rules 8(a)(2), 10(b), and 12(b)(6). As a result, she
has abandoned any challenge to either ground for dismissing her complaint. See
id. (“When an appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds on
Case: 16-10043 Date Filed: 11/06/2017 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4
which the district court based its judgment, [s]he is deemed to have abandoned any
challenge of that ground, and it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.”).1
AFFIRMED.
1 Brinson does not argue that the district court abused its discretion in not allowing her
leave to amend. Brinson has also filed four “Motion[s] for Declaration of Brinson Kimberly”
that contain hundreds of additional exhibits. We construe those filings as motions to supplement
her brief. Because Brinson never received leave to file those motions, they are DENIED. See
11th Cir. R. 28, I.O.P. 5 (“Supplemental briefs may not be filed without leave of court.”).
Case: 16-10043 Date Filed: 11/06/2017 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --