Angela W. Debose v. USA

── Angela W. Debose v. USA ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 21, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-12299 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 05/21/2026 Page: 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12299 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ANGELA W. DEBOSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, MICHAEL WASHINGTON, LAVONNE WASHINGTON, Intervenor Plaintiffs, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, RONALD FICARROTTA, Chief Judge, in official capacity, ELIZABETH G. RICE, individually and/or in her official capacity, GREGORY P. HOLDER, individually and/or in his official capacity, et al., Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 25-12299 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 05/21/2026 Page: 2 of 4 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12299 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-02127-SDM-AAS ____________________ Before LUCK, LAGOA, and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Angela DeBose, a licensed attorney proceeding pro se,1 ap- peals the denial of her motion to dissolve a limited filing injunction enjoining her from filing further lawsuits about her employment at the University of South Florida without the signature of an attor- ney barred in Florida or the Middle District of Florida. The injunc- tion was imposed on her in 2022, and we affirmed the imposition of the injunction. See DeBose v. United States, No. 22-13380, 2024 WL 489699 at *1 (11th Cir. Feb. 8, 2024). She contends there has been a significant change in circumstances that justifies dissolution of the injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), including a letter from a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) indicating that it had investi- gated DeBose and found “no misconduct” on her part. 2 She also asserts the original imposition of the injunction violated due pro- cess when the district court failed to provide her with notice and 1 While we liberally construe pro se pleadings, this rule does not apply to a licensed attorney. Olivares v. Martin, 555 F.2d 1192, 1194 n.1 (5th Cir. 1977). 2 DeBose is admitted to the State Bar of Wisconsin. USCA11 Case: 25-12299 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 05/21/2026 Page: 3 of 4 25-12299 Opinion of the Court 3 an opportunity to be heard before its issuance. After review, 3 we affirm. District courts have both the inherent power and constitu- tional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions. Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1072-73 (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (listing several different injunctions that courts have historically permitted to curtail vexatious litigation); see also Martin-Trigona v. Shaw, 986 F.2d 1384, 1387 (11th Cir. 1993). A litigant can thus be “severely restricted” as to what he may file and how he must behave when seeking judicial relief so long as he is not “completely foreclo