Willie J. Mitchell, Sr. v. The State Court of Georgia

── Willie J. Mitchell, Sr. v. The State Court of Georgia ── Case No.: 25-11769 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 02, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11769 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 04/02/2026 Page: 1 of 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11769 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ WILLIE J. MITCHELL, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus THE STATE COURT OF GEORGIA, JUDGE SUSAN E. EDLEIN, JAMIE MACK, Assistant Solicitor, DENNIS J. MURPHY, OFFICER JASON WESCOTT, City of Roswell Police Officer, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cv-01186-TCB ____________________ USCA11 Case: 25-11769 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 04/02/2026 Page: 2 of 11 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11769 Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Willie Mitchell Sr., proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for failure to state a claim and as frivolous. After careful review, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND A. Original Complaint In March 2025, the district court allowed pro se plaintiff Willie Mitchell Sr. to proceed in forma pauperis and file his original complaint. Mitchell’s original complaint (1) contained four paragraphs of factual allegations, mostly focusing on allegedly false testimony during his 2009 state DUI trial for driving under the influence, and (2) named the defendants as the State of Georgia, a state court judge, attorneys, and witnesses involved in his 2009 trial. The original complaint also alleged non-defendant police officers committed retaliatory sexual acts on Mitchell for his prior complaints about another police officer. Mitchell’s complaint asserted claims under the False Claims Act, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and Georgia law. USCA11 Case: 25-11769 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 04/02/2026 Page: 3 of 11 25-11769 Opinion of the Court 3 B. District Court’s April 2, 2025, Order On preliminary review of Mitchell’s complaint, the district court found Mitchell’s claims were “impossible to decipher.” The district court instructed that Mitchell “need[ed] to clarify his factual allegations and organize his complaint so that he states a legal claim.” The district court ordered Mitchell to file an amended complaint within twenty-one days. The district court required that any amended complaint do the following: (1) comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including by alleging the basis for this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) provide sufficient, non-conclusory factual allegations that support each claim; (3) identify each cause of action in separate counts of the complaint, providing within each count a succinct explanation of the legal