In Re: Eric Watkins

USCA11 Case: 23-10359 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023 Page: 1 of 6

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-10359

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

In re: ERIC WATKINS,

Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:19-mc-63180-WPD

____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 23-10359 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023 Page: 2 of 6

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10359

Eric Watkins, proceeding pro se, filed a motion seeking leave

to file a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging constitutional claims

stemming from his suspension from a public library. Watkins al-

leged that, on January 2, 2019, he was suspended from the library

for thirty days following an altercation with a library supervisor.

After the supervisor instructed him not to curse in the library, Wat-

kins denied cursing and objected to the supervisor’s calling Wat-

kins “sir,” stating, “my name is not sir thats a faggot and a

madicone” [sic]. The supervisor asked Watkins to leave for the day

for cursing at him. Watkins denied cursing, again equated “sir”

with the two anti-gay slurs, and then took a seat at a table. About

thirty minutes later, the supervisor returned with two police offic-

ers and ordered Watkins to leave the library and suspended him for

thirty days. Watkins later won his appeal of the suspension. Wat-

kins claims that the actions of the library supervisor and the two

officers violated his constitutional rights to patronize a public li-

brary and to free speech.

Watkins is a serial litigant who is subject to a filing injunction

that prevents him from filing any new lawsuit in the Southern Dis-

trict of Florida without prior court approval. In a prior case, we

affirmed the filing injunction so long as the court merely screened

out the “frivolous and malicious” claims and allowed the “argua-

ble” or “colorable” claims to go forward. See Watkins v. Dubreuil,

820 F. App’x 940, 948–49 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks omit-

ted). The district court screened Watkins’s proposed pleading and

determined he did not present an arguable case. Watkins appeals.

USCA11 Case: 23-10359 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023 Page: 3 of 6

23-10359 Opinion of the Court 3

In general, we review de novo the legal sufficiency of a claim,

accepting the factual allegations in the complaint as true. See Mitch-

ell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). Yet “[a] determi-

nation of frivolity is best left to the district court, and we will re-

view such determinations only for abuse of discretion.” Bilal v.

Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001). In reviewing for frivol-

ity, the court may consider facts outside the complaint, including

“a litigant’s history of bringing unmeritorious litigation.” Id. at

1350; see also Clark v. State of Ga. Pardons & Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636,

640–41 (11th Cir. 1990). Because the district court here screened

for frivolity and considered facts outside the complaint, we review

for an abuse of discretion.

“A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in

law or fact.” Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349; see Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

319, 325 (1989) (frivolity “embraces not only the inarguable legal

conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation”). Moreover,

even if a complaint legally states a claim and the facts are not fan-

tastic, a dismissal on grounds of frivolousness might be justified in

certain narrow circumstances, such as a “questionable claim” by a

litigant with a “long history of bringing unmeritorious litigation”

or where “an affirmative defense would defeat the action,” such as

immunity. Clark, 915 F.2d at 640–41 & n.2. Any finding of frivolity

must have support in the record, though. See id. (vacating and re-

manding where “the record in this case establishes no explanation

for concluding that [the] case is frivolous”). The court may not

simply “adopt[] a presumption of frivolity.” Cofield v. Ala. Pub. Serv.

Comm’n, 936 F.2d 512, 519 (11th Cir. 1991).

USCA11 Case: 23-10359 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023 Page: 4 of 6

4 Opinion of the Court 23-10359

Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by con-

cluding that Watkins’s proposed pleading, dated December 31,

2022, was without arguable merit. See Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349. Con-

trary to Watkins’s claim, the court was permitted to consider facts

outside the complaint, including “a litigant’s history of bringing

unmeritorious litigation” and obvious potential defenses. Id. at

1350; Clark, 915 F.2d at 640–41 & n.2. Citing numerous prior un-

successful lawsuits, the court, which has the most familiarity with

Watkins’s litigation history, found that Watkins “has a pattern of

cursing and displaying disruptive behavior in public places, like

singing anti-gay songs, complaining about the term ‘Sir’[,] and us-

ing of the word ‘Faggot’,” and then suing those who confront him.

And it reasoned that Watkins’s current pleading was consistent

with that pattern. While Watkins disputes the court’s authority to

rely on his litigation history, he has not challenged the court’s de-

scription of that history or its parallels to this case.

Not only that, but Watkins presented “questionable” claims

that would almost certainly be defeated by the defense of qualified

immunity. See Clark, 915 F.2d at 640–41 & n.2. Watkins sued the

library supervisor and police officers individually for damages un-

der § 1983, so to prevail he would have to show that the defendants

violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Waldron v.

Spicher, 954 F.3d 1297, 1303 (11th Cir. 2020). He cannot do so.

The First Amendment protects the right to receive infor-

mation, including the “right to some level of access to a public li-

brary.” Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for Town of Morristown, 958 F.2d

USCA11 Case: 23-10359 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023 Page: 5 of 6

23-10359 Opinion of the Court 5

1242, 1255 (3d Cir. 1992); see Neinast v. Bd. of Trustees of Columbus

Metro. Library, 346 F.3d 585, 591 (6th Cir. 2003). But that right of

access does not permit patrons to engage in “conduct that would

disrupt the quiet and peaceful library environment.” Kreimer, 958

F.2d at 1256. Similarly, we have recognized a “constitutionally pro-

tected liberty interest” to use public property under the ordinary

conditions in which the property is made available to the public.

Catron v. City of St. Petersburg, 658 F.3d 1260, 1266–67 & n.5 (11th

Cir. 2011).

According to Watkins’s own allegations, he was ordered to

leave the library and suspended for thirty days only after repeatedly

using anti-gay slurs in response to the ordinary honorific “sir” and

ignoring the library supervisor’s request to leave the library for

cursing. Watkins does not dispute that the library reasonably could

view cursing or offensive language as disruptive to the “quiet and

peaceful library environment.” Kreimer, 958 F.2d at 1256. Rather,

he mainly disputes that he ever cursed at the library supervisor. But

as the district court observed, the supervisor reasonably could have

viewed Watkins’s use of the anti-guy slurs as tantamount to curs-

ing, whether directed at the supervisor or not. And it does not

strike us as unreasonable for the officers to have acted on the su-

pervisor’s seemingly reliable statements without first questioning

Watkins.

To the extent these events violated Watkins’s constitutional

rights, we see nothing to suggest that the contours of those rights

were defined enough to give the defendants “fair notice” that their

USCA11 Case: 23-10359 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023 Page: 6 of 6

6 Opinion of the Court 23-10359

conduct violated Watkins’s constitutional rights in the specific con-

text of this case. See Patel v. City of Madison, Ala., 959 F.3d 1330,

1338 (11th Cir. 2020) (“[H]e must show that his right was clearly

established in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad

general proposition, at the time of [the defendant’s] actions, so as

to have provided fair notice to [the defendant] that his actions vio-

lated [the plaintiff’s] rights.”). This is not a context in which existing

precedent has “placed the statutory or constitutional question be-

yond debate.” Johnson v. City of Miami Beach, 18 F.4th 1267, 1274

(11th Cir. 2021).

For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of

Watkins’s motion for leave to file a complaint.

AFFIRMED.