Peter Hernandez v. Charlotte Corr. Inst., No. 09-15952 (11th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 09-15952 AUGUST 30, 2010 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY ________________________ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 09-00459-CV-FTM-99SPC PETER HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CHARLOTTE CORRECTION INSTITUTION, OFFICER GUARINO, Security Staff, OFFICER GALLAGHER, Security Staff, LIEUTENANT LOWMAN, Security Staff, SERGEANT GATTO, Security Staff, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _________________________ (August 30, 2010) Before CARNES, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Peter Hernandez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court s dismissal, without prejudice, of his civil rights action, which was filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for (1) abuse of the judicial process, and (2) alternatively, failure to comply with Rules 8(a) and 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On appeal, Hernandez contends that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint for abuse of the judicial process because it erred in finding that he committed perjury with respect to his response to the question on the complaint form asking whether other federal lawsuits had been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. We liberally construe pro se briefs. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). In liberally construing a litigant s arguments, however, we will not act as de facto counsel for the litigant. GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998). Thus, arguments not raised on appeal by pro se litigants are deemed abandoned. Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. Upon review of the record, and upon consideration of the party s brief, we affirm. Even construed liberally, Hernandez s brief still fails to address the district court s alternative basis for dismissing the complaint failure to comply with 2 Rules 8(a) and 10(b). On this independent ground for the district court s dismissal. which Hernandez has abandoned, we affirm the district court s order dismissing the complaint and need not address Hernandez s remaining arguments. 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.