Shaquon Rashawn Johnson v. C. Neel

── Shaquon Rashawn Johnson v. C. Neel ── Case No.: 25-11388 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 01, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11388 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11388 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ SHAQUON RASHAWN JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus C. NEEL, Secretary's Representative, Individual and Official Capacity, C. BURNETT, Lieutenant, Individual and Official Capacity, NUNES, Inspector General, Individual and Official Capacity, REIBL, Inspector General, Individual and Official Capacity, A. MCGREGOR, Grievance Coordinator, Individual and Official Capacity, et al., Defendants-Appellees, MCKENNY, First Shift Lieutenant, Individual and Official Capacity, USCA11 Case: 25-11388 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11388 Defendant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:24-cv-00477-MMH-PDB ____________________ Before LUCK, LAGOA, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellant Shaquon RaShawn Johnson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice, under Fed- eral Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), of his amended civil rights com- plaint against 14 named prison employees and state officials. On appeal, Johnson argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his amended complaint for failure to comply with prior instructions on how to properly re-plead his allegations, as- serting that his amended complaint set forth related claims against two specific defendants, such that those defendants were properly joined, and that he stated a claim for deliberate indifference against four other named defendants. Having reviewed the record and read Johnson’s brief,1 we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Johnson’s amended complaint. I. We review a district court’s order dismissing an action under Rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion. Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns, 1 Appellees did not file a response brief. USCA11 Case: 25-11388 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 3 of 5 25-11388 Opinion of the Court 3 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999). “A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” TVPX ARS, Inc. v. Genworth Life & An- nuity Ins. Co., 959 F.3d 1318, 1324 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation omit- ted). II. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that, “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Although the plain language of Rule 41(b) indicates that a defendant may move for dismissal, a dis-