Carlton Eugene Hooker, Jr. v. Kevin T. Hanretta, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13342
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
CARLTON EUGENE HOOKER, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KEVIN T. HANRETTA,
Individually and Officially,
KAREN MULCAHY,
Officially only,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13342 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/20/2023 Page: 1 of 7

-- 1 of 7 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13342
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cv-01614-TPB-TGW
____________________
Before W ILSON, B RANCH, and L UCK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Carlton Hooker, Jr., appeals from the district court’s
sua
sponte dismissal of his civil rights complaint on the ground that it
was “an attempted end run” around two pre-filing injunctions
entered against Hooker in prior proceedings. After review, we
conclude the district court erred and we remand for further
proceedings.
I. Background
At one time, Hooker was employed as a police officer at Bay
Pines Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Florida.
Hooker v.
Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 607 F. App’x 918, 919 (11th Cir.
2015) (unpublished) (
Hooker I). However, in 2010, Bay Pines
terminated Hooker’s employment.
Id. Over the last decade,
Hooker has filed numerous suits against the United States
Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) and individuals associated
with that department raising employment discrimination claims
and claims related to the VA’s subsequent vacancy announcements
and its failure to hire him.
See id. at 919–920;
see also Hooker v.
Sec’y, Dep’t of Veteran Affs., No. 21-13311, 2022 WL 4365798, at
*1 (11th Cir. Sept. 21, 2022). As a result, on August 8, 2021, a district
USCA11 Case: 22-13342 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/20/2023 Page: 2 of 7

-- 2 of 7 --

22-13342 Opinion of the Court 3
court judge issued a pre-filing injunction enjoining Hooker “from
filing any new [
pro se] action, complaint, or claim for relief against
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs related to his employment in
federal court, state court, or any other forum.”
Hooker v. Wilkie,
No. 8:20-cv-02557-KKM-JSS, Doc. 26 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2021).
Thereafter, Hooker brought another action against the
United States raising claims related to a 2016 “ban” from the Bay
Pines facility placed on him by the VA.
Hooker v. United States,
No. 8:22-cv-00537-KKM-MRM, Doc. 29 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2022).
On August 11, 2022, a different district court judge modified the
earlier pre-filing injunction to enjoin Hooker “from filing [
pro se]
any new action, complaint, or claim for relief against the
Department of Veterans Affairs, its employees, or any agency of
the United States, related to his employment and/or the ‘ban’
imposed by the VA, under any theory.”
Id.
However, in July 2022, prior to the August 11, 2022,
modification of the pre-filing injunction, Hooker filed the
underlying complaint in the Middle District of Florida. In the
complaint, Hooker did not raise any claims related to employment
with the VA. Instead, he alleged that on several occasions between
2016 and 2018, the VA unlawfully “banned” him from the Bay
Pines facility based on false information. He asserted that as a
result of the ban, he was “consistently harassed [sic] by the VA
police” when he visited another outpatient clinic for treatment, and
that he had been denied access to medical care at the Bay Pines
facility and VA benefits and services at a regional office, prevented
USCA11 Case: 22-13342 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/20/2023 Page: 3 of 7

-- 3 of 7 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-13342
from visiting a family member in the Bay Pines facility, and denied
access to the Bay Pines VA National Cemetery.
Although Hooker purported to serve the defendants via
registered mail, they never entered an appearance, and Hooker
moved for summary judgment.1 Thereafter, the district court
sua
sponte dismissed the complaint with prejudice in an endorsed
order, concluding that it was “an attempted end run” around the
pre-filing injunctions discussed previously. Hooker, proceeding
pro se, appealed.2
1 Two months after Hooker filed this appeal, the defendants who did not
appear below filed in this Court an out of time motion for an extension of time
to file a response brief. In the motion, the defendants state that, although
Hooker purportedly served them via mail, they did not receive notice of the
case and were unaware of the filing until recently. We DENY AS MOOT the
motion for extension of time to file a response brief. We direct the district
court on remand to determine whether Hooker served the defendants. We
also note that there does not appear to be any personal service on the
defendant who was named in his individual capacity.
2 We note that Hooker filed his notice of appeal over forty days from the
endorsed order, which would normally render his appeal untimely.
See Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (providing that in a civil case, absent circumstances not
present here, a notice of appeal must be filed “within 30 days after entry of the
judgment or order appealed from”). However, because the district court did
not enter a separate written judgment as required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 58, the time to appeal did not begin to run for purposes of Rule 4(a)
until 150 days after the entry of the endorsed order on the docket.
See id. Rule
4(a)(7)(A)(ii). Therefore, Hooker’s appeal is timely.
USCA11 Case: 22-13342 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/20/2023 Page: 4 of 7

-- 4 of 7 --

22-13342 Opinion of the Court 5
II. Discussion
Liberally construing Hooker’s
pro se brief, he argues,
among other grounds, that the district court abused its discretion
in dismissing his complaint because he did not violate the initial
pre-filing injunction as the underlying complaint “makes no
mention of employment.” He further maintains that the complaint
did not violate the modified pre-filing injunction which enjoined
him from filing “any new action” against the VA and associated
individuals relating to either his employment or “the ‘ban’ imposed
by the VA” because he filed the underlying complaint in July 2022,
prior to the modification of the pre-filing injunction.3 After careful
review, we must agree.
A district court may
sua sponte dismiss a case for failure to
comply with court rules under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b) or based on its inherent authority to manage its own docket.
Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th
Cir. 2005). Although the district court did not specify whether it
relied on Rule 41(b) or its inherent authority to
sua sponte dismiss
the underlying action, we review dismissals under either authority
for an abuse of discretion.
Id.
Here, the plain language of the initial 2021 pre-filing
injunction enjoined Hooker from filing any new
pro se action,
3 Hooker also takes issue with the dismissal of several of his prior cases as well
as the modification of the pre-filing injunction and accuses various individuals
of fraud upon the court. We do not reach these issues.
USCA11 Case: 22-13342 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/20/2023 Page: 5 of 7

-- 5 of 7 --

6 Opinion of the Court 22-13342
complaint, or claim against the Secretary of the VA that “related to
his employment” with the VA.
See Wilkie, No. 8:20-cv-02557-
KKM-JSS, at Doc. 26. Hooker did not mention anything about his
employment in the underlying complaint. Instead, he referenced
a 2016 injunction imposed by the VA which banned him from the
Bay Pines facility. Based on the limited record before us, there is
no basis for us to infer that the 2016 “ban” is related to Hooker’s
employment—Hooker’s complaint does not state what the ban
originated from, the defendants did not appear below or file a
response, and Hooker’s prior appeal indicates that his employment
terminated in 2010.
Hooker I, 607 F. App’x at 919. Accordingly,
we cannot say that the complaint fell within the scope of the initial
2021 pre-filing injunction.
Finally, although the August 2022 modified pre-filing
injunction enjoins Hooker from filing new
pro se actions against
the VA “related to his employment and/or the ‘ban’ imposed by
the VA, under any theory,” Hooker filed the underlying complaint
in July 2022 prior to the modification of the pre-filing injunction.
Thus, because Hooker filed the underlying complaint prior to the
modification of the pre-filing injunction, the modified pre-filing
injunction could not operate to bar the underlying complaint.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court abused its
discretion in dismissing the complaint on the ground that it was an
USCA11 Case: 22-13342 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/20/2023 Page: 6 of 7

-- 6 of 7 --

22-13342 Opinion of the Court 7
attempted end run around the referenced pre-filing injunctions.4
Therefore, we vacate the dismissal and remand for further
proceedings.5
VACATED AND REMANDED.
4 We express no opinion on the merits of Hooker’s complaint, and the district
court is free on remand to dismiss on other grounds should it deem dismissal
appropriate for other reasons.
5 Hooker’s motion for entry of judgment due to the appellees’ failure to file a
response brief in this Court is DENIED.
USCA11 Case: 22-13342 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/20/2023 Page: 7 of 7

-- 7 of 7 --