Maldonado v. Perkins et al

Filing 10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL dismissing re 9 Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(b)(1) for failure to state a claim. The Clerk shall send plaintiff a 2254 habeas form, enter judgment, and close the case. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 4/28/2017. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DAVID RAY MALDONADO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-175-FtM-29CM

TERENCE
PERKINS,
in
his
personal capacity, JANE DOE
PERKINS, R. J. LARIZZA, in
his personal capacity, JANE
DOE
LARIZZA,
STATE
OF
FLORIDA, and FLAGER COUNTY
7TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT,
Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Moore Haven Correctional Facility
in Moore Haven, Florida, initiated this action by filing a pro se
civil

rights

complaint

pursuant

to

42

U.S.C.

§

1983

against

Defendants Jane Doe Larizza, R. J. Larizza, Jane Doe Perkins, and
Terence Perkins (Doc. 3, filed March 27, 2017).

Along with his

complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. 2).

On April 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint

in which he added the State of Florida and the Seventh Judicial
Circuit Court as defendants (Doc. 9).
Because Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the
Court

must

review

his

complaint

to

determine

whether

it

is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
For the reasons given in this Order, the claims raised in the
complaint are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
I.
Plaintiff’s
understand.
member

of

sovereign

amended

Complaint
complaint

is

very

difficult

Generally, he asserts that he is “a constituent
that

body

certain
known

as

body
the

corporate
good

and

People

real

of

and

these

at 1) (emphasis in original).
fit

within

the

natural

Colonies,

successor sovereign to King George III of England. . .”

not

to

(Doc. 9

He asserts that his complaint “does

DISTRICT

COURT’s

form

for

civil

rights

violations as [he] is not [a] statutory citizen, and [he is] not
claiming jurisdiction under said statutes.”
original).

Id. (emphasis in

Plaintiff asserts that he is the “true heir and

beneficiary” of his own legal estate, and as a result, he exercises
his “right to the possession and control of the same.”

Id. at 3.

Plaintiff sues the Courts and prosecuting attorneys from his
underlying criminal case and asserts that they (the defendants)
are “for-profit corporations acting under military process as
opposed to de jure courts and offices of the people.” Id. at 6.
He asserts that the court “receives an income stream from every
conviction, which is a huge conflict of interest.”

- 2 -

Id.

As a

result, Plaintiff challenges the subject matter jurisdiction of
the state criminal court, and urges that his conviction is void.
Id.

Plaintiff further urges that “criminal prosecutions are

civil, and the Sureties are being put in prison for contempt for
failing to pay the debt.”

Id. at 9.

Plaintiff seeks damages and the dismissal of his underlying
criminal conviction (Doc. 9 at 11-12).
II.
A

federal

district

Legal Standards
court

is

required

to

review

a

civil

complaint filed in forma pauperis and dismiss any such complaint
that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

The mandatory language

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 applies to all proceedings in forma pauperis.
Section 1915 provides:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion
thereof, that may have been paid, the court
shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that(A)

the allegation of poverty is untrue;
or

(B)

the action or appeal(i)

is
frivolous
malicious;

(ii)

fails to state a claim on
which
relief
may
be
granted; or

(iii)

seeks
monetary
relief
against a defendant who

- 3 -

or

is
immune
relief.

from

such

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
A

complaint

may

be

dismissed

as

frivolous

under

§

1915(e)(2)(B)(i) where it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

A claim is

frivolous as a matter of law where, inter alia, the defendants are
immune from suit or the claim seeks to enforce a right that clearly
does not exist. Id. at 327.

In making the above determinations,

all factual allegations in the complaint must be viewed as true.
Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1347 (11th Cir. 2004).
In the case of a pro se action, the Court should construe the
complaint

more

liberally

than

it

would

pleadings

lawyers. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980).

drafted

by

Nevertheless, pro

se litigants are not exempt from complying with the requirements
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 8(a)(2)’s
pleading standard. GJR Investments, Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, 132
F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (“Yet even in the case of pro se
litigants this leniency does not give a court license to serve as
de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient
pleading in order to sustain an action[.]” (internal citations
omitted)), overruled on other grounds as recognized in Randall v.
Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 706 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Moon v.
Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (stating that pro se

- 4 -

litigants are “subject to the relevant law and rules of court,
including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”).
III. Analysis
Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed because he challenges
the validity of his underlying criminal convictions.

In Heck v.

Humphrey, the United States Supreme Court held that a claim for
damages challenging the legality of a prisoner's conviction or
confinement is not cognizable in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action “unless
and

until

the

invalidated,

conviction

or

impugned

or
by

sentence
the

grant

is

reversed,

of

a

writ

expunged,
of

habeas

corpus[,]” and complaints containing such claims must therefore be
dismissed. 512 U.S. 477, 483–489 (1994).

Under Heck, the relevant

inquiry is “whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence[.]”
512 U.S. at 487.

The Supreme Court emphasized that “habeas corpus

is the exclusive remedy for a ... prisoner who challenges” a
conviction or sentence, “even though such a claim may come within
the literal terms of § 1983” and, based on the foregoing, concluded
that Heck's complaint was due to be dismissed as no cause of action
existed under § 1983. Id. at 481.
the

lower

court's

reasoning

In so doing, the court rejected

that

a

§

1983

action

should

be

construed as a habeas corpus action.
In Edwards v. Balisok, the Supreme Court concluded that a
state

prisoner's

“claim[s]

for

declaratory

- 5 -

relief

and

money

damages

.

.

.

that

necessarily

imply

the

invalidity

of

the

punishment imposed, [are] not cognizable under § 1983” unless the
prisoner can demonstrate that the challenged action has previously
been invalidated. 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997).

Moreover, the court

determined that this is true not only when a prisoner challenges
the judgment as a substantive matter but also when “the nature of
the challenge to the procedures could be such as necessarily to
imply the invalidity of the judgment.” Id. at 645.

The court

reiterated the position previously taken in Heck that the “sole
remedy

in

federal

court”

for

a

prisoner

challenging

the

constitutionality of a conviction is a petition for writ of habeas
corpus.

Balisok,

520

U.S.

at

645.

Additionally,

the

Court

“reemphasize[d] . . . that a claim either is cognizable under §
1983 and should immediately go forward, or is not cognizable and
should be dismissed.” Id. at 649.
Here, Plaintiff appears to argue that the state court in which
he was convicted lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
his

claims

necessarily

call

into

question

the

Accordingly,
lawfulness

of

Plaintiff's convictions and his continued incarceration. Because
Plaintiff's
procedures

confinement
listed

in

has

not

been

Heck,

his

claims

remedied
are

by

any

premature

of

the

and

not

cognizable under § 1983.
A habeas corpus action is the proper vehicle for raising
claims

that

may

affect

the

fact

- 6 -

or

duration

of

a

criminal

defendant's confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488–
490 (1973).

A review of the docket indicates that Plaintiff has

not filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition.

Therefore, should

Plaintiff wish to challenge his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, he should file a habeas corpus petition on the habeas
corpus form provided as an attachment to this Order by the Clerk.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff's

amended

complaint

(Doc.

9)

is

DISMISSED

pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(b)(1) for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted;
2.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a 28

U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus form; and
3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending

motions, close this case, and enter judgment accordingly.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this
of April, 2017.

SA: OrlP-4
Copies: David Ray Maldonado
Encl: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 form

- 7 -

28th

day