Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar TAMIKA SEAY v. ANDREA JO ANNE DAVID VEGA

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-17 Docket: 1:24-mi-00083-LMM The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing Tamika Seay’s pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous and denying her motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Seay failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief, particularly given the prior filing restriction imposed on her. The court applied an abuse of discretion standard to review the dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and the denial of leave to amend. While pro se pleadings are liberally construed, the court reiterated that courts cannot rewrite deficient pleadings or serve as de facto counsel. The opinion clarified that a complaint is frivolous if it lacks arguable merit in law or fact, including when it seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant or fails to state a claim. Specifically regarding the underlying allegations involving child custody proceedings and prosecutorial immunity, the court noted that prosecutors are absolutely immune for activities intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process and that the domestic-relations exception limits federal jurisdiction over certain custody matters. Furthermore, the court found that granting leave to amend would have been futile because the complaint remained legally insufficient and conflicted with the existing filing injunction designed to prevent vexatious litigation. As a result of this decision, Seay’s appeal is dismissed, the district court’s order remains in effect, and she is barred from proceeding with her § 1983 claims or filing further complaints without prior court approval under the terms of the pre-filing injunction. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.