James Thomas Carlan v. C. Ashley Royal

── James Thomas Carlan v. C. Ashley Royal ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: June 05, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-13787 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 06/05/2026 Page: 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13787 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ JAMES THOMAS CARLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus C. ASHLEY ROYAL, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 5:25-cv-00397-MTT ____________________ Before JORDAN, KIDD, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellant James Carlan appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his in forma pauperis complaint alleging USCA11 Case: 25-13787 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 06/05/2026 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 25-13787 that Judge Jason Ashford 1 of Georgia’s Houston County State Court violated his First Amendment rights and Judge Ashley C. Royal of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia violated his Seventh Amendment rights. Carlan does not argue that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his complaint as frivolous. Instead, he only argues that Judge Royal unconstitutionally dismissed his prior actions. Having reviewed the record and read the appellant’s brief, 2 we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Carlan’s complaint. I. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a pro se litigant’s in forma pauperis complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1348-49 (11th Cir. 2001). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks arguable merit in law or fact, or, in other words, “has little or no chance of success.” Id.; Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993) (quotation marks omitted). We liberally construe pro se pleadings and hold them to a less stringent standard than counseled pleadings. Bilal v. Geo Care, LLC, 981 F.3d 903, 911 (11th Cir. 2020). However, pro se litigants are still “subject to the relevant law and rules of court,” and we “cannot act as de facto counsel or rewrite an otherwise defi- cient pleading to sustain an action.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 1 Judge Ashford was never named as a defendant in Carlan’s complaint. 2 Appellee did not file a brief. USCA11 Case: 25-13787 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 06/05/2026 Page: 3 of 5 25-13787 Opinion of the Court 3 837 (11th Cir. 1989); Geo Care, LLC, 981 F.3d at 911. “[I]ssues not briefed on appeal” by pro se litigants “are deemed abandoned,” and the district court’s “judgment is due to be affirmed” if pro se liti- gants “fail[] to challenge properly on appeal . . . the grounds on which the district court based its judgment.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008); Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). All defendants that are par- ties to a lawsuit must be named in the complaint’s caption. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). II. “Judges are entitled to absolute ju