USCA11 Case: 22-10943 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 05/22/2023 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-10943
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
BRADLEY JAMES ALBERT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY,
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
AMERICAN STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF
WISCONSIN,
AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10943 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 05/22/2023 Page: 2 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 22-10943
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-01112-ELR
____________________
Before JORDAN, GRANT, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Bradley Albert, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
order denying two pro se motions for post-judgment relief. No re-
versible error has been shown; we affirm.
This appeal is the second time this litigation has come before
us for review. In 2014, Albert (through his then-lawyer) filed the
underlying civil action against American Family Insurance Com-
pany, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, American
Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin, and American Family
Life Insurance Company (collectively, “American Family”). Albert
asserted claims for unlawful employment retaliation and for breach
of contract. The parties mediated the case and, in March 2016,
reached a settlement whereby American Family agreed to pay Al-
bert $85,000 in exchange for a general release of all claims.
Albert later disputed the settlement agreement. Around the
same time, a dispute arose between Albert and his lawyer about
attorneys’ fees: Albert ended his lawyer’s representation and pro-
ceeded pro se.
In Albert’s first appeal before this Court, we affirmed the dis-
trict court’s orders (1) granting American Family’s motion to
USCA11 Case: 22-10943 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 05/22/2023 Page: 3 of 5
22-10943 Opinion of the Court 3
enforce the settlement agreement; (2) granting in part Albert’s for-
mer lawyer’s motion to establish a charging lien; (3) denying Al-
bert’s motion to return his case file; and (4) denying Albert’s mo-
tion to recuse. See Albert v. Am. Family Ins. Co.,
739 F. App’x 607
(11th Cir. 2018) (unpublished).
Following that appeal, the district court ordered the dis-
bursement of the settlement proceeds and attorneys’ fees. The
case was closed on 7 March 2019.
In April 2021, Albert filed pro se the motions underlying this
appeal. Albert titled his motions this way: (1) “Motion to Reopen
Under Rule 60(b)(6) and Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint or
Initial Complaint” (“Motion 1”); and (2) “Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint” (“Motion 2”). Attached to Motion 2
was a document titled “Second Amended Complaint or Initial
Complaint.”
The district court denied Albert’s motions. The district
court determined that Albert’s motion to reopen -- filed almost
three years after final judgment was entered -- was untimely under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. The district court also denied Albert leave to file
a second amended complaint, noting that amendment under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a) is unavailable after entry of a final judgment.
Construing liberally Albert’s appellate brief, we see no sub-
stantive arguments challenging the district court’s rulings denying
Albert’s motion to reopen and denying Albert leave to file a second
amended complaint. Albert has thus forfeited the argument that
the district court erred in denying those motions. See United States
USCA11 Case: 22-10943 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 05/22/2023 Page: 4 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 22-10943
v. Campbell,
26 F.4th 860, 863 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (explaining
that an appellant forfeits an argument by failing to raise it in his
appellate brief ); Timson v. Sampson,
518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.
2008) (“While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues
not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.”
(citation omitted)).
Albert argues chiefly that the district court erred in failing to
construe his motions as an initial complaint actually then com-
mencing a new civil action. In support of his argument, Albert
points to the phrase “or Initial Complaint” in the title of Motion 1
and in the title of the document attached to Motion 2. According
to Albert, the district court had discretion either (1) to grant his
motions, reopen the case, and allow him to amend his complaint,
or (2) to treat his motions as initiating a new civil action. We reject
that argument.
To commence a new civil action, a plaintiff must file a com-
plaint with the court, complete proper service of process by serv-
ing the defendants with the summons and complaint, and pay the
applicable court filing fee. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, 4; N.D. Ga. Civ. R.
3.2 (requiring advance payment of court filing fees). Despite his
pro se status, Albert was required to comply with these procedural
requirements. See Albra v. Advan, Inc.,
490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir.
2007).
Even if we assume that such titles might count for some-
thing, that Albert included the phrase “or Initial Complaint” in the
title of his motion and in the title of his proposed amended
USCA11 Case: 22-10943 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 05/22/2023 Page: 5 of 5
22-10943 Opinion of the Court 5
complaint is insufficient to commence a new civil action. The Fed-
eral Rules of Civil Procedure also make clear that a motion and a
pleading are two distinct categories of documents: a motion cannot
be construed, in the alternative, as an initial pleading. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 7.
The district court committed no error by failing to treat Al-
bert’s motions as a finished initial complaint in a new civil action.
Because Albert’s motions really constituted no initial complaint,
we reject Albert’s contention that the district court erred in failing
to enter a default judgment against American Family.
AFFIRMED.
