[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-13244
OCTOBER 28, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 09-14123-CV-KMM
WAYNE BISSO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LORNA JENSEN,
ROBERT STONE,
Attorney,
KENNETH PALMER,
Attorney,
BRIAN M. BEAUCHAMP,
Attorney,
KENNETH NORMAN, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(October 28, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Wayne Bisso, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
sua sponte dismissal of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim,
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).1 No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
Bisso filed a section 1983 complaint against many defendants, including
lawyers. He claimed that he had been falsely arrested and prosecuted in Florida for
grand theft of assets of his deceased common-law wife. He claimed that his
Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the state failed to recognize his
Georgia common-law marriage. The district court dismissed Bisso’s complaint
because (1) the complaint did not explain how or whether defendants acted under
the color of state law; (2) to the extent the named lawyers acted under color of state
law, they were entitled to immunity; and (3) Bisso’s challenges to his criminal
proceedings were barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994).
On appeal, Bisso makes arguments about rulings in his criminal trial and
maintains that he and his late wife had a common-law marriage. He also argues
1
We review de novo the district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim
under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Hughes v. Lott,
350 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (11th Cir. 2003).
2
that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance and that the district court
should have ordered an evidentiary hearing on this issue. But Bisso makes no
arguments about the district court’s rulings on his section 1983 complaint: he does
not challenge the district court’s conclusions that no defendant acted under color of
state law, that the lawyers were immune from suit, or the applicability of the Heck
bar. As such, Bisso has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s dismissal
of his section 1983 complaint. See Horsley v. Feldt,
304 F.3d 1125, 1131 n.1 (11th
Cir. 2002) (explaining that issues not argued on appeal are deemed waived by a pro
se litigant).2
AFFIRMED.
2
To the extent Bisso seeks to challenge his motion to reclassify -- which he filed after the
district court’s dismissal of his section 1983 complaint and in which he sought to convert his
complaint into a habeas corpus petition -- that order is not properly before us. See Fed.R.App.P.
3(c)(1)(B) (stating that the notice of appeal must designate the judgment, order, or part being
appealed).
3
