Henry Lagi v. Jennifer Morris, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Henry James Lagi. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-11834

Date Filed: 01/31/2017

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11834
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cv-00193-RH-GRJ

HENRY JAMES LAGI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JENNIFER MORRIS,
Sheriff Deputy,
DON ODHAM,
Detective,
MIKE WOOD,
Leon County Sheriff,
DAVIS,
Leon County Jail Captain,
DAVIS,
Leon County Jail Lieutenant,
MR. BLANTON,
Sergeant, Leon County Jail,
NANCY DANIELS,
Public Defender,
WILLIAM N. MEGGS,
State Attorney Second Judicial Circuit,
CITY OF TALLAHASSEE,

Case: 16-11834

Date Filed: 01/31/2017

Page: 2 of 5

Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(January 31, 2017)
Before WILSON, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Henry J. Lagi, a Florida detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for violations of the Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The
district court dismissed Lagi’s claims pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine1
and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). On appeal, Lagi argues that his complaint does allege a claim upon
which relief can be granted and that the circumstances surrounding the complaint
qualify for an exception to the Younger abstention doctrine. Upon careful review,
we affirm.
I.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to abstain from
a matter on Younger grounds. 31 Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255, 1274

1

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746 (1971).
2

Case: 16-11834

Date Filed: 01/31/2017

Page: 3 of 5

(11th Cir. 2003). Under the Younger abstention doctrine, to respect federal-state
comity, a federal court should only exercise jurisdiction over ongoing state court
proceedings in limited circumstances. Younger, 401 U.S. at 41–43, 91 S. Ct. at
749–50. A district court may abstain when its exercise of jurisdiction would
interfere with ongoing state proceedings, the proceedings implicate an important
state interest, and the proceedings provide an adequate opportunity for a party to
raise constitutional challenges. See 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1274. The
Younger abstention doctrine, however, is not applied if (1) there is evidence that
the state proceedings were motivated by bad faith or harassment, (2) abstention
would cause irreparable injury, or (3) there is no adequate alternative state forum
where the plaintiff can raise the constitutional issues. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 45,
53–54, 91 S. Ct. at 751, 754–55; Hughes v. Att’y Gen. of Florida, 377 F.3d 1258,
1263 n.6 (11th Cir. 2004).
The district court did not err in dismissing Lagi’s complaint on Younger
abstention grounds. Lagi does not argue that Younger is prima facie inapplicable,
but argues only that the three exceptions to Younger apply in his case. But Lagi
supports his arguments with only vague assertions regarding personal agendas,
injustice, and general corruption in the local, state, and national justice systems.
Such bare assertions fail to illustrate that the exceptions are implicated.
Accordingly, the district court properly concluded that this case does not fall
3

Case: 16-11834

Date Filed: 01/31/2017

Page: 4 of 5

within any Younger exception and dismissed Lagi’s complaint. Younger, 401 U.S.
at 45, 53–54.
II.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1159–60
(11th Cir. 2003). A district court shall at any time dismiss a case proceeding in
forma pauperis if it determines that the action fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We employ the same
standard in analyzing a dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as we do in analyzing
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissals. See Farese v. Scherer, 342
F.3d 1223, 1230 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). To survive a 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). A
claim is facially plausible when its “factual content allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
While pro se complaints should be liberally construed, they still must allege factual
allegations that “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” See Saunders
v. Duke, 766 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

4

Case: 16-11834

Date Filed: 01/31/2017

Page: 5 of 5

The district court did not err in dismissing for failure to state a claim Lagi’s
claims against the prosecutor, William Meggs, and the public defender, Nancy
Daniels, because Meggs was immune from damages and Lagi’s § 1983 complaint
is not cognizable against Daniels acting in her capacity as a defense attorney. See
Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 341–42, 129 S. Ct. 855, 860 (2009)
(holding that state prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for their official
actions); Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1173 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam)
(noting that public defenders, in representing their clients, do not act under color of
state law). Accordingly, in addition to properly dismissing Lagi’s claims under the
Younger abstention doctrine, the district court properly dismissed Lagi’s claims
against Meggs and Daniels under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
AFFIRMED.

5