Maceo Williams v. Judge Brian C. Wimes, Jr., et al, No. 23-12437 (11th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 23-12437 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 04/11/2024 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-12437 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ MACEO WILLIAMS, Plainti -Appellant, versus JUDGE BRIAN C. WIMES, JR., CIA, JOHN DOE, MARTA, JANE DOE, SALVATION ARMY, CHANDRA TRIMBTE, Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 23-12437 2 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 04/11/2024 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 3 23-12437 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-01457-VMC ____________________ Before WILSON, LUCK, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Maceo Williams, proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his complaint with prejudice. The complaint invoked the court’s federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, to allege a First Amendment free exercise claim against a federal district judge and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the court’s supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, to allege a state law tort claim against the Salvation Army, Chandra Trimbte, and several John and Jane Does. The District Court dismissed the federal question claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and the supplemental claim because it believed that claim more properly belonged in state court. Williams now appeals the judgment. We a rm the dismissal of the § 1331 claims and § 1367 claim and instruct the District Court on receipt of our mandate to revise the judgment dismissing the § 1367 claim without prejudice. We a rm the District Court’s judgment regarding the § 1331 claims because they are frivolous; thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing them. The federal claims are USCA11 Case: 23-12437 23-12437 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 04/11/2024 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 3 3 conclusory. They are that the district judge and the CIA combined to destroy his religious journey (which the complaint does not describe) through “intense anti-Semitic Satanism.” They intended to “stop[ him] from praying to Jesus Christ, Adonai, Hashem, or any [O]thodox [J]ewish God name, preventing him from exercising his First Amendment rights. The complaint is devoid of conduct to that end. As for Williams’s state law tort claim, the District Court was within its discretion to dismiss it once the federal claims were dismissed. See Silas v. Sheri of Broward Cnty., 55 F.4th 863, 866 (11th Cir. 2022) (“A district court . . . will rarely err by declining supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claims that supported its jurisdiction are dismissed.”). We instruct the District Court on receipt of our mandate to amend its judgment to re ect the dismissal of those claims without prejudice. AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions to enter dismissal without prejudice.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
