Frank C. Johnson, Jr. v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. , 476 F. App'x 823 ( 2012 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-12872 APRIL 11, 2012
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-00249-SPM-GRJ
FRANK C. JOHNSON, JR.,
a.k.a. Frank Johnson,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
RUTH B. JOHNSON,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff,
versus
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A.,
CHRISTIAN W. HANCOCK,
Individually,
agent of Bradley Arant Boult Cumming Law Firm,
In the State of Florida,
JON S. WHEELER,
Honorable, Individually and in his capacity as Clerk of Court
for the First District of Florida and in his enforcement capacity,
CLIVE N MORGAN, Individually,
PENDERGAST AND MORGAN PA,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_______________________
(April 11, 2012)
Before CARNES, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Frank Johnson Jr., proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s sua
sponte dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), of the pro se civil
rights action he filed with his wife, Ruth B. Johnson, against various defendants.
The Johnsons alleged violations of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981,
1983, 1985(3), and 1986, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and
Section 21 of the Florida Constitution. In addition, they asserted state law claims
for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and intentional
misrepresentation, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and a claim for
injunctive relief against the enforcement of certain orders entered in Florida state
courts. Johnson argues that an amended complaint, filed on the day the district
court entered its order dismissing their lawsuit, “related back” to the Johnsons’
original complaint.
We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state
2
a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), using the same standards that govern
dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6). Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th
Cir. 1997). We review a district court’s decision not to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction for abuse of discretion. Utopia Provider Sys., Inc. v. Pro-Med
Clinical Sys., L.L.C., 596 F.3d 1313, 1328 (11th Cir. 2010).
The district court correctly concluded the Johnsons’ complaint did not state
any claim upon which relief could be granted. In particular, there were no
allegations suggesting any of their federal claims could be maintained against any
of the named defendants, and their state law claims failed on multiple grounds.
With regard to their “relation back” argument, the district court had entered an
order dismissing the complaint at the time the second amended complaint was
filed. Because the Johnsons had already filed an amended complaint which the
court considered, they were not entitled to a second amendment “as a matter of
course.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). To the extent that any of the state law claims
might have been capable of amendment, the district court properly declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3