Johnny Traylor v. Kirsten Miller Howard, et al., No. 14-11974 (11th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-11974 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-11974 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-00959-CAP JOHNNY TRAYLOR, Plaintiff Appellant. versus KIRSTEN MILLER HOWARD, et al. Defendants Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (September 18, 2014) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, and COX, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Johnny Traylor, a frequent litigant proceeding pro se, appeals the sua sponte dismissal of his complaint as frivolous and for failure to comply with Case: 14-11974 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 2 of 3 the district court s standing order enjoining him from filing any new lawsuits without first obtaining permission from the district court and posting a $5,000 bond. Traylor argues that the district court s order dismissing his complaint violated his right to a jury trial and that his complaint was not frivolous. 1 We affirm. We review a district court s dismissal for frivolity for abuse of discretion. Cf. Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1348 49 (11th Cir. 2001) (conducting frivolity review of an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(e)). A district court has the inherent authority to dismiss a frivolous complaint. Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363 64 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307 08, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 1821 (1989) ( Section 1915(d), for example, authorizes courts to dismiss a frivolous or malicious action, but there is little doubt they would have power to do so even in the absence of this statutory provision. ). We have reviewed the allegations in the complaint, and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Traylor s complaint as frivolous. As the district court properly noted, [n]one of the counts contain allegations that the defendants named in the action committed some wrong or violated some right of Traylor s . . . . 1 The district court had jurisdiction because the complaint, while frivolous, does purport to bring at least one claim under federal law. 2 Case: 14-11974 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 3 of 3 (District Court Order at 2). The district court did not dismiss the complaint based upon its standing order. Thus, we need not address the propriety of the court s standing order. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
