USCA11 Case: 20-13804 Date Filed: 05/19/2021 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13804
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-23440-BB
WILLIE FRANK WALKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,
HERBERT ERVING WALKER, III,
in his personal and official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 19, 2021)
Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-13804 Date Filed: 05/19/2021 Page: 2 of 5
Willie Walker, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s sua sponte
dismissal of his civil complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim. The gist of his complaint was that, in his past state criminal case, the
state prosecutor failed to show that the state court had jurisdiction over him. On
appeal, Walker doesn’t challenge the district court’s finding that it lacked
jurisdiction to consider his complaint. Instead, he reiterates that Appellee Herbert
Walker, the prosecutor in his state-court case, violated his constitutional rights by
failing to answer his post-conviction jurisdictional challenges in that case. He
states that this failure deprived the state court of subject-matter jurisdiction and
references the Accardi doctrine1 as a source of relief. He doesn’t address Appellee
Ashley Moody’s involvement in the matter.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. Center v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
895 F.3d
1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2018). The party asserting the claim bears the burden of
establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction. Williams v. Poarch Band of Creek
Indians,
839 F.3d 1312, 1314 (11th Cir. 2016). We also review de novo a district
court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Behrens v. Regier,
422 F.3d 1255, 1259 (11th Cir. 2005).
1
The Accardi doctrine—derived from United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy,
347 U.S.
260 (1954)—“stands for the unremarkable proposition that an agency must abide by its own
regulations,” Chevron Oil Co. v. Andrus,
588 F.2d 1383, 1386 (5th Cir. 1979).
2
USCA11 Case: 20-13804 Date Filed: 05/19/2021 Page: 3 of 5
Courts should liberally construe pro se pleadings. Alba v. Montford,
517
F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). But courts can’t rewrite otherwise deficient
pleadings in order to sustain actions. Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd.,
760 F.3d
1165, 1168–69 (11th Cir. 2014). And pro se litigants still must conform to
procedural rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc.,
490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).
Federal courts may adjudicate cases only when both the Constitution and a
federal statute grant jurisdiction. Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
168 F.3d
405, 409 (11th Cir. 1999). Courts have an independent obligation to inquire into
subject-matter jurisdiction.
Id. at 410. If a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
over a claim, it must dismiss it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleading must contain “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Generally, a complaint is not required to contain detailed
factual allegations, but “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his
entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions.” Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (cleaned up). The complaint must
contain enough facts to make a claim for relief plausible on its face—that is, the
factual content must allow the court to “draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). Further, although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, they still
3
USCA11 Case: 20-13804 Date Filed: 05/19/2021 Page: 4 of 5
must suggest some factual basis for a claim. Jones v. Fla. Parole Comm’n,
787
F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 2015).
The district court properly dismissed Walker’s case because both his
complaint and his amended complaint failed to allege any basis for subject-matter
jurisdiction or relief. First, as to jurisdiction, Walker failed to allege diversity of
citizenship and, although he purported to travel under federal-question jurisdiction,
he failed to allege sufficient facts for the district court to assess whether it
possessed such jurisdiction. On appeal, he doesn’t direct our attention to any
federal cause of action authorizing his action against his state prosecutor for failing
to demonstrate that the state court had jurisdiction. We lack a general supervisory
power over state courts. Rogers v. McMullen,
673 F.2d 1185, 1188 (11th Cir.
1982). 2
Second, even assuming jurisdiction existed, Walker failed to allege any clear
ground for relief. His threadbare assertion that Herbert Walker failed to answer his
jurisdictional challenges didn’t provide factual context from which the district
2
Although Walker doesn’t claim to seek a writ of habeas corpus, the district court correctly
noted that he failed to allege that he exhausted state remedies, as he would be required to do if he
sought the writ. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel,
526 U.S. 838, 845
(1999).
4
USCA11 Case: 20-13804 Date Filed: 05/19/2021 Page: 5 of 5
court could infer that Herbert Walker or Ashley Moody was liable for any
misconduct.3
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
3
Walker’s reference to the Accardi doctrine doesn’t change this result. Walker didn’t allege a
violation of any specific rule or regulation or allege any action by a federal agency, so Accardi
provides no basis for relief. See
Chevron, 588 F.2d at 1386.
5
