USCA11 Case: 23-12396 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-12396 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

MOHAMMAD SHARIFI, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF MADISON COUNTY,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-00157-KD-B ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-12396 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12396

Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Mohammad Sharifi, an Alabama state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 com- plaint as frivolous and malicious under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), 1915A(b)(1). After careful review, we affirm. Because the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them here only as necessary to decide the case. We hold pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard and will liberally construe them. Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). However, an appellant abandons an issue by failing to challenge it on appeal. See Irwin v. Hawk, 40 F.3d 347, 347 n.1 (11th Cir. 1994) (applying this abandonment rule to a pro se liti- gant). An appellant also abandons an issue on appeal where he pre- sents it only in “passing references” or “in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and authority.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014). “[S]imply stat- ing that an issue exists,” without providing reasoning and citation to authority that the appellant relies on, “constitutes abandonment of that issue.” Id. (quoting Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009)). We may exercise our discretion to consider a forfeited issue if: (1) the issue involves a pure question of law and re- fusal to consider it would result in a miscarriage of USCA11 Case: 23-12396 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2024 Page: 3 of 3

23-12396 Opinion of the Court 3

justice; (2) the party lacked an opportunity to raise the issue at the district court level; (3) the interest of substantial justice is at stake; (4) the proper resolution is beyond any doubt; or (5) the issue presents signifi- cant questions of general impact or of great public concern.

United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 95 (2022). Here, Sharifi has abandoned any purported challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his case. Even when construing his brief liberally, Sharifi failed to challenge any basis of the district court’s dismissal of his case. See Irwin, 40 F.3d at 347 n.1; Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681. Rather than argue that he was not relitigating a pending case or that §§ 1915 and 1915A in any way did not apply to him, Sharifi simply repeats his theory that he was wronged by Broussard and others for their alleged improprieties related to his criminal conviction. Thus, Sharifi has abandoned any challenge to the dis- trict court’s dismissal of his complaint. See Irwin, 40 F.3d at 347 n.1; Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681. Although this Court may exercise its dis- cretion to consider forfeited issues, none of the exceptions to the usual forfeiture rule apply to Sharifi’s appeal. See Campbell, 26 F.4th at 873. AFFIRMED.