Sean T. Wright v. 15th District Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office

── Sean T. Wright v. 15th District Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office ── Case No.: 25-12737 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 01, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-12737 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 1 of 18 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12737 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ SEAN T. WRIGHT, as individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus 15TH DISTRICT PALM BEACH COUNTY STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, State Government Entities, FRANK DI ORSINI, PBSO Sherriff, Official and Individual Capacity, SHERIFF OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 25-12737 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 2 of 18 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12737 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 9:24-cv-81145-AMC ____________________ Before JORDAN, KIDD, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Sean T. Wright, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the 15th District Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office (“State Attorney’s Office”), dismissing his amended complaint against the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office (“PBSO”) and Deputy Frank Di Orsini, and denying his motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against Di Orsini. First, he argues that the district court erred in concluding that his claims against the State Attorney’s Of- fice were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Second, he argues that the district court erred in dismissing his amended com- plaint because he complied with the court’s instructions and pro se form in amending his complaint, he had Article III standing to pur- sue his claims, the district court failed to hold an evidentiary hear- ing, and the district court misapplied various legal standards. Third, he argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for a TRO against Di Orsini and in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion. Because we write only for the parties who are already famil- iar with the facts, we set out only such facts as are relevant to the legal issues. USCA11 Case: 25-12737 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 3 of 18 25-12737 Opinion of the Court 3 I. DISCUSSION A. Eleventh Amendment Immunity We review de novo whether a party is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Barnes v. Zaccari, 669 F.3d 1295, 1302 (11th Cir. 2012). “We review de novo the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,” accepting “a complaint’s well-pleaded allegations as true and draw[ing] all reasonable infer- ences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Huggins v. Sch. Dist. of Manatee Cnty., 151 F.4th 1268, 1277 (11th Cir. 2025). “A pro se pleading is held to a less stringent standard than a pleading drafted by an attorney and is liberally construed.” Wald- man v. Conway, 871 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2017). Nonetheless, “a pro se pleading must still suggest that there is at least some fact