Andrew Sheets v. Kelvin Jimenez

── Andrew Sheets v. Kelvin Jimenez ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 29, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-12844 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/29/2026 Page: 1 of 16 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12844 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ANDREW BRYANT SHEETS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus KELVIN JIMENEZ, In personal capacity, DYLAN J. RENZ, In personal capacity, CITY OF PUNTA GORDA, Municipality, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:24-cv-00704-SPC-KCD ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 25-12844 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/29/2026 Page: 2 of 16 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12844 PER CURIAM: Andrew Sheets (“Sheets”), proceeding pro se, appeals the dis- trict court’s order dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging violations of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by Officers Kelvin Jimenez (“Jimenez”) and Dylan Renz (“Renz”) for viewpoint discrimination in their enforcement of Punta Gorda City Ordinance § 15-48(e) (the “ordinance”) and by the City of Punta Gorda, Florida (the “City”) for its failure to train its officers. On appeal, Sheets argues his complaint properly alleged comparators and showed that the officers selectively enforced the ordinance against certain viewpoints. He also contends the City’s enforcement of the ordinance was arbitrary, capricious, and hap- hazard, in violation of the First Amendment, and showed deliber- ate indifference for the City’s failure to train for Monell1 liability. Sheets also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for re- consideration. 2 After careful review, we affirm. 1 Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). 2 Because Sheets raises the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsider- ation only in passing, any arguments specific to that claim are waived. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004); Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (a claim is aban- doned when an appellant “either makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and authority”). Sheets provides no support in his briefs for his conclusion that denying this motion was “not proper[,]” suggesting only that his position is “[s]elf explana- tory.” USCA11 Case: 25-12844 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/29/2026 Page: 3 of 16 25-12844 Opinion of the Court 3 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3 A self-described “Government accountability journalist,” Sheets posts police-related news stories on his social media ac- counts. In 2019, Sheets filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the or- dinance. See Sheets v. City of Punta Gorda, Fla., 415 F. Supp. 3d 1115 (M.D. Fla. 2019). The ordinan