Date: Apr 17, 2026

Rule 41(b) Dismissals “Without Prejudice” Do Not Support Res Judicata; Conclusory “Conspiracy with Judges” Allegations Fail the State-Action Requirement

1. Introduction

Larry Clark, Sr. v. LC Halsten LLC (11th Cir. Apr. 14, 2026) arises from a long-running rent and utilities dispute between tenant Larry Clark, Sr. and successive owners/management entities of an apartment complex. After state-court dispossessory/eviction proceedings in which judges entered orders requiring Clark to pay rent into the registry of the court, Clark sued a wide array of defendants—state judges (in official capacities), a landlord-side attorney, former and current property owners/management companies, and unknown defendants—asserting federal civil-rights and housing-discrimination theories and seeking injunctive relief to halt enforcement of the state-court orders.

The key appellate issues were: (i) whether res judicata barred claims against the landlord attorney based on a prior federal dismissal; (ii) whether the complaint plausibly alleged federal claims (including “state action” and race discrimination) against private landlord entities; (iii) whether denial of leave to amend and a preliminary injunction was proper; and (iv) whether service issues and appellate abandonment required affirmance.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. It held that the district court erred in applying res judicata to the attorney defendant because the prior dismissal was without prejudice and thus not “on the merits” under Rule 41(b). Nevertheless, the court affirmed dismissal of that defendant on an alternative basis supported by the record: the complaint did not state a cognizable claim.

The court also affirmed dismissal of claims against a state judge for failure to satisfy federal pleading standards under Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, affirmed judgment on the pleadings for private landlord entities because Clark pled only conclusory “concerted action” allegations insufficient to establish state action (and likewise failed to plead nonconclusory race-discrimination facts for other federal statutes), affirmed denial of a preliminary injunction for lack of likelihood of success on the merits, and affirmed dismissal/denial as to the current owner because Clark did not challenge an alternative merits ground (appellate abandonment).

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

In re Piper Aircraft Corp. — Provided the elements of claim preclusion, emphasizing the need for a final judgment on the merits before res judicata applies.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (as applied) — The panel relied on the Rule’s proviso that a dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with orders “operates as an adjudication on the merits” unless the dismissal order states otherwise. Because the prior case was dismissed “without prejudice,” it could not supply the “on the merits” requirement for res judicata.
Manuel v. Convergys Corp. — Supplied the de novo standard of review for a Rule 12(b)(6)-type dismissal.
Kernel Recs. Oy v. Mosley — Enabled affirmance “on any ground supported by the record,” even if the district court relied on an incorrect ground (here, res judicata).
Albra v. Advan, Inc. — Reinforced that pro se pleadings are liberally construed but must still comply with procedural pleading rules.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly — The “Twiqbal” framework: courts disregard conclusory labels and require plausible factual allegations.
Cockrell v. Sparks and Burger King Corp. v. Weaver — Governed denial of leave to amend: amendment may be denied as futile when the amended pleading would still be dismissed.
Samara v. Taylor — Clarified Rule 12(c) judgment-on-the-pleadings uses the same standard as Rule 12(b)(6).
Harvey v. Harvey and Dennis v. Sparks — Central to “state action” by private parties: a private actor can be liable under § 1983 if a willful participant in joint action with the State, but a plaintiff must plead material facts showing the relationship/nature of conspiracy; and “merely resorting to the courts and being on the winning side” is not enough.
Baker v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ. — Noted an important channeling principle: § 1981 claims against state actors must be pursued via § 1983.
Griffin v. Breckenridge — Supplied the animus requirement for § 1985(3): the conspiracy must be motivated by racial or otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus and aim at depriving equal enjoyment of rights.
Scott v. Roberts, United States v. Lambert, and Siegel v. LePore — Set standards for preliminary injunctions: abuse-of-discretion review; injunction as extraordinary remedy; and the four-factor test (including substantial likelihood of success on the merits).
Rance v. Rocksolid Granit USA, Inc. — Provided the abuse-of-discretion framework for dismissals related to service under Rule 4(m).
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. — Drove multiple procedural outcomes: failure to challenge an issue in the opening brief forfeits it, and failure to attack an independent alternative ground for judgment requires affirmance (abandonment).

3.2. Legal Reasoning

A. Res judicata rejected where the earlier dismissal was “without prejudice,” but affirmance permitted on alternate grounds

The district court dismissed claims against the landlord attorney based on res judicata, citing a prior federal case dismissed for discovery noncompliance. The Eleventh Circuit corrected the doctrine’s application: under In re Piper Aircraft Corp., res judicata requires a merits judgment; and under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), a sanctions/noncompliance dismissal is merits-based only if the order does not “state otherwise.” Because the prior case expressly dismissed “without prejudice,” it was not a merits adjudication and could not preclude the new suit.

Critically, the panel then pivoted to appellate practice: under Kernel Recs. Oy v. Mosley, it could affirm on any record-supported ground. Applying Iqbal/Twombly, it affirmed because the pleadings did not state a plausible claim against the attorney (including failure to plead “state action” or actionable misconduct with factual specificity).

B. Pleading failures against the state judge; denial of leave to amend as futile

Against the state judge, Clark alleged the rent-registry order was “illegal and wrongful” and motivated by race, but the court found only legal conclusions and non-specific accusations. Under Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, those allegations did not plausibly show a constitutional violation.

The court upheld denial of leave to amend because the proposed amended complaint did not cure the same pleading defects—making amendment futile under Cockrell v. Sparks and Burger King Corp. v. Weaver. The panel expressly declined to reach judicial immunity, resolving the appeal on pleading sufficiency instead.

C. Private landlord entities: no “state action” for § 1983 without well-pled joint action; other federal claims lacked nonconclusory discrimination facts

The former landlord entities obtained judgment on the pleadings. Under Samara v. Taylor, the Rule 12(c) standard matched Rule 12(b)(6). For § 1983, the dispositive element was “under color of state law.” Relying on Harvey v. Harvey and Dennis v. Sparks, the court reiterated that a private party may be treated as a state actor only when the complaint pleads, with material facts, a willful joint action/conspiracy with state officials. Clark alleged only conclusory “acted in concert” language, which does not show the “relationship or nature of the conspiracy.” The panel also invoked Dennis v. Sparks to reject the common inference that a litigant’s success in court implies conspiracy: resorting to the courts and winning is not joint action.

For § 1981, § 1982, and § 3604, the court found the pleadings lacked nonconclusory allegations that decisions were made because of race. For § 1985(3), relying on Griffin v. Breckenridge, the complaint failed to plead facts indicating a conspiracy animated by class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus.

D. Preliminary injunction properly denied for lack of likelihood of success

The injunction sought to stop enforcement of state-court rent-registry orders. Under Scott v. Roberts, United States v. Lambert, and Siegel v. LePore, Clark bore a heavy burden to show, among other things, a substantial likelihood of success. Because the federal claims were properly dismissed on the pleadings, the likelihood-of-success element necessarily failed, and denial was affirmed.

E. Service and appellate abandonment: affirmance based on an unchallenged alternative ground

As to the current owner (Halsten), Clark focused on service of process. The panel applied Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.: because the district court also dismissed on an alternative merits/pleading ground—and Clark did not challenge that ground in his opening brief—he abandoned it, requiring affirmance irrespective of the service dispute. The opinion similarly noted abandonment regarding other judge-defendants dismissed for lack of service.

3.3. Impact

Res judicata precision in federal practice: The decision reinforces that a Rule 41(b) dismissal does not support claim preclusion if the dismissal order is “without prejudice.” Even where a district court labels a later action “nearly identical,” preclusion turns on whether the earlier judgment was actually “on the merits.”
Appellate “affirm on any ground” as a safety valve: The opinion illustrates how an appellate court can correct an erroneous ground (res judicata) yet still affirm because pleading failures independently require dismissal (Kernel Recs. Oy v. Mosley).
High bar for converting private eviction conduct into § 1983 liability: The court’s reliance on Harvey v. Harvey and Dennis v. Sparks signals continued skepticism of civil-rights complaints that treat adverse state-court outcomes as evidence of conspiracy. Plaintiffs must plead concrete facts showing an agreement or corrupt joint action—not merely parallel interests or judicial rulings.
Housing/contract discrimination claims require factual “because of race” allegations: Assertions that a lease is invalid or proceedings are “void” do not substitute for facts showing discriminatory intent or disparate treatment under § 1981, § 1982, or § 3604.
Procedural rigor for pro se litigants: While pro se pleadings are read liberally (Albra v. Advan, Inc.), they must meet federal plausibility standards and comply with appellate briefing rules (Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.).

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Res judicata (claim preclusion): A rule that prevents re-filing the same claim after it has already been finally decided. A key requirement is a prior final decision “on the merits.” If the earlier case was dismissed “without prejudice,” it usually is not treated as a merits decision for preclusion purposes.
Rule 41(b) dismissal “operates as an adjudication on the merits”: Rule 41(b) sets a default: certain dismissals count as merits judgments—unless the dismissal order says otherwise. Here, the prior order said “without prejudice,” so the default did not apply.
State action / “under color of state law” (§ 1983): § 1983 generally targets government wrongdoing. Private parties can be liable only in narrow situations, such as a well-pled conspiracy/joint action with a state official. Simply using the court system (filing eviction cases, requesting orders) does not, by itself, make a private landlord a state actor.
Twiqbal pleading: Shorthand for Twombly and Iqbal: complaints must include enough factual detail to make the claim plausible, not just accusations and legal conclusions.
Judgment on the pleadings (Rule 12(c)): A way to resolve a case based solely on the complaint and answer when the law entitles one side to win even assuming the pleaded facts are true. The standard mirrors Rule 12(b)(6).
Futility of amendment: Courts need not allow an amendment if the new complaint would still be dismissed for the same legal reasons.
Appellate abandonment/forfeiture: If an appellant does not adequately argue an issue (or fails to challenge an independent alternative ground for the judgment) in the opening brief, the appellate court will treat the issue as abandoned and affirm on that basis.

5. Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision delivers two practical lessons. First, a prior dismissal “without prejudice” does not satisfy the “on the merits” requirement for res judicata, even if the later complaint closely resembles the earlier one. Second, civil-rights and discrimination claims challenging eviction-related state-court rulings must be pled with concrete, nonconclusory facts—especially where the defendants are private landlords or their counsel and § 1983 liability depends on plausibly alleged joint action with state officials. Procedurally, the opinion also underscores that preliminary injunctions require a strong merits showing, and that failure to challenge alternative grounds on appeal mandates affirmance.