Teresa Y. Weinacker v. Charles Baer
696 F. App'x 937
11th Cir.2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Teresa Weinacker filed a 23-count suit against 34 defendants arising from her company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy and her federal criminal prosecution and conviction.
- District court dismissed the second amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) as a "quintessential shotgun pleading" and struck a later third amended complaint as futile.
- Dismissals included claims against private lawyers, corporations (Wal‑Mart officers), federal judges, prosecutors, FBI agents, federal agencies and agency heads (official- and individual-capacity claims), and various statutory and state-law claims.
- Specific rulings: claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, 1986, 1988 dismissed for failure to plead elements (race/class-based animus, inapplicability to non-lawyer pro se litigants, derivative defects).
- Section 1983 claims dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey to the extent they would invalidate Weinacker’s conviction/sentence and otherwise dismissed as time-barred under the governing statute of limitations.
- Prosecutors and judges were held immune (absolute or judicial immunity); sovereign immunity barred official-capacity/agency claims; individual-capacity claims against agency heads failed for lack of personal involvement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of pleadings under Twombly/Iqbal | Weinacker argues district court misapplied pleading standard and should have accepted her allegations | Defendants argue complaint is formulaic, conclusory, and a shotgun pleading failing plausibility | Affirmed: district court applied Twombly/Iqbal correctly and dismissal was proper |
| Section 1983 liability after conviction | Weinacker contends damages claims arise from wrongdoing discoverable only after release and are timely | Defendants contend §1983 claims would imply invalidity of conviction (Heck) or are time-barred | Affirmed: claims barred by Heck as to conviction-related claims; remaining §1983 claims time-barred |
| §1981/§1985/§1986/§1988 claims | Weinacker alleges civil‑rights conspiracies and discrimination | Defendants contend plaintiff failed to allege racial/class‑based animus or other required elements; §1988 inapplicable to non‑lawyer pro se litigant | Affirmed: these statutory claims dismissed for failure to plead required elements or inapplicability |
| Immunity and sovereign immunity defenses | Weinacker seeks relief from prosecutors, judges, agency heads, and federal agencies | Defendants assert absolute prosecutorial and judicial immunity; sovereign immunity for official-capacity/agency claims; lack of personal involvement for individual-capacity claims | Affirmed: prosecutorial and judicial immunity, sovereign immunity, and failure to plead personal involvement warranted dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Butler v. Sheriff of Palm Beach Cnty., 685 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (application of plausibility standard to factual allegations)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§1983 claims barred if success would imply invalidity of conviction)
- Rozar v. Mullis, 85 F.3d 556 (11th Cir. 1996) (accrual of civil-rights claims and when statute of limitations begins to run)
- GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 1998) (limits on treating pro se litigants as counsel)
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (issues not raised on appeal are abandoned)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (accrual and relation of statute-of-limitations principles to §1983 actions)