Albert E. Brinson v. Pat Welsh, 709 F. App'x 582

Background

Albert and Dawn Brinson were cited under City of Tybee Island ordinances for "Dog on the Beach" while launching their sailboat from a private boat ramp.
Proceeding pro se, they sued the City and three employees alleging discrimination and harassment under multiple constitutional provisions and federal statutes (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986).
The magistrate judge sua sponte found the original complaint deficient, ordered amendment, and the Brinsons filed a response treated as an amended complaint.
The amended pleading chiefly alleged discriminatory enforcement: Tybee allowed some residents to bring dogs or litter without citation while citing the Brinsons as non-residents.
The magistrate recommended dismissal with prejudice as further amendment would be futile; the district court adopted the R&R and dismissed. Albert Brinson appealed; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by sua sponte dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim	Brinsons argued the citation was discriminatory and harassing and that the magistrate’s amendment order was collusive; alleged selective enforcement against non-residents	Tybee Island argued the complaint lacked factual allegations plausibly showing discrimination or liability and dismissal was proper	No abuse of discretion: dismissal appropriate because amended complaint lacked factual matter showing plausible liability; amendment would be futile
Whether the alleged facts supported a plausible selective-enforcement/discrimination claim	Brinsons pointed to alleged instances where Tybee residents were not cited for similar conduct	Defendants noted unspecific, conclusory assertions without factual particulars (who, when, comparable conduct)	Held insufficient; allegations only raised a mere possibility of misconduct and were legal conclusions, not factual plausibility
Whether pro se status required the court to rewrite or supply facts to sustain claims	Brinsons relied on liberal construction of pro se pleadings to preserve claims	Defendants maintained courts need not act as de facto counsel or convert conclusions into facts	Court affirmed that pro se pleadings are construed liberally but cannot be rewritten; plaintiffs must plead plausible facts
Whether the magistrate’s prior notice and opportunity to amend cured any procedural issues with sua sponte dismissal	Brinsons contended dismissal was improper or collusive	Defendants emphasized magistrate gave notice and chance to amend but amended pleading still failed to state a claim	Court held notice and opportunity were given and dismissal was not an abuse of discretion because amendment would have been futile

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483 (11th Cir. 1997) (standard of review for dismissal for failure to state a claim)
Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011) (sua sponte dismissal reviewed for abuse of discretion; notice and opportunity to amend required unless futile)
Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2015) (amendment futile and patently frivolous exceptions to notice requirement)
Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 2014) (courts will not rewrite deficient pro se pleadings or act as de facto counsel)