Jackson et al v. State of Florida et al
Filing
35
OPINION AND ORDER dismissing 32 Amended Complaint. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 12/19/2018. (RKR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
CHARLIE JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No:
2:18-cv-259-FtM-29MRM
STATE OF FLORIDA, KATHLEEN
A. SMITH, Attorney, MIKE
SCOTT, AND RICK SCOTT,
Defendants.
OPNION AND ORDER
On June 5, 2018, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s initial civil
rights complaint filed in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1)
but
granted
Plaintiff
complaint.
See Doc. #28.
leave
to
file
an
amended
The Court now reviews Plaintiff’s
Amended Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. #32) and, as more fully set
forth herein, finds the Amended Complaint is subject to dismissal
pursuant to § 1915A(b)(1).
I.
Plaintiff, who is confined as a pretrial detainee in the Lee
County Jail, files his Amended Complaint against the following
defendants
in
both
their
individual
and
official
capacities:
Kathleen Smith, the Public Defender for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, The State of Florida, Mike Scott, (former) Lee County
Sheriff, and Rick Scott, (former) Florida State Governor.
#32 at 2-3.
Doc.
The Amended Complaint alleges violations of Article
I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, as well as violations of
the Sixth, Fourteenth, and Eighth Amendments.
Amended
Complaint
conclusions of law.
is
disjointed
and
Id. at 3.
comprised
of
The
general
To the extent discernable, Plaintiff claims
that Defendant Smith’s Office violated Article I, Section 9 of the
U.S. Constitution, by taking the title “Esquire.”
Id. at 5.
According
the
to
Plaintiff,
this
title
violates
U.S.
Constitution’s prohibition that “no title of nobility shall be
granted by the United States.”
Id.
In support, Plaintiff states
that he “was kidnapped (arrested) and forced under contract to
accept the privileges of an Esquire by Defendants or employees
under
the
Defendants
certificate.”
with
a
capitol
bond-post
consumer
Id. at 7.
Plaintiff suggests that the “Defendants” “jointly conspire to
deprive the Plaintiff of the legally recognized rights under color
of
state
law,”
presumably
because
with
Defendants
permitted
Defendant Smith to continue representing herself as an “Esquire.”
Id. at 5.
As a result, Plaintiff contends the “Defendants” are
without jurisdiction to prosecute him and he is being falsely
imprisoned.
Id.
Plaintiff also generally claims his “right to speedy trial,
right to be free from excessive bonds, [and] right to effective
assistance of counsel” are being violated.
Id. at 6. As relief,
Plaintiff asks the Court, inter alia, to “dismiss all state actions
- 2 -
against him in the criminal proceedings,” and order each Defendant
to pay him $12.3 million “for the time Plaintiff spent in their
institution incarcerated.”
Id. at 7.
II.
Because Plaintiff is a “prisoner” 1 and seeks to proceed in
forma pauperis, the Court
is required to review the Amended
Complaint
complaint,
and
“dismiss
the
or
any
portion
of
the
complaint” if the Court finds that the complaint “is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or, alternatively “seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous under § 1915 where
it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Neitzke v. Williams,
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 addition, where an affirmative defense would defeat a claim, it
may be dismissed as frivolous.
Clark v. Ga. Pardons & Paroles
Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 640 n.2 (11th Cir. 1990).
1
Despite his pretrial detainee status, (see Doc. #32 at 4),
Plaintiff is considered a prisoner for purposes of review under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, as the term includes “any persons incarcerated or
detained in any facility who is accused of . . . violations of
criminal law . . . .” Id. § 1915A(c).
- 3 -
The phrase “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted” has the same meaning as the nearly identical phrase in
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
12(b)(6).
See
Mitchell
v.
Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997) (“The language of
section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks the language of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and we will apply Rule 12(b)(6) standards
in reviewing dismissals under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).”).
is,
although
a
complaint
need
not
provide
detailed
That
factual
allegations, there “must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level,” and the complaint must contain enough facts
to state a claim that is “plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007).
In making the above determinations, all factual allegations
in the complaint must be viewed as true.
F.3d 1344, 47 (11th Cir. 2004).
Brown v. Johnson, 387
Moreover, the Court must read the
plaintiff’s pro se allegations in a liberal fashion.
Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege that (1) the defendant deprived him of a right secured under
the Constitution or federal law, and (2) the deprivation occurred
under color of state law.
Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175
(11th Cir. 2011) (citing Arrington v. Cobb County, 139 F.3d 865,
872 (11th Cir. 1998).
In addition, a plaintiff must allege and
establish an affirmative causal connection between the defendant’s
- 4 -
conduct and the constitutional deprivation.
Marsh v. Butler
County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1059 (11th Cir. 2001); Swint v. City
of Wadley, Ala., 51 F.3d 988, 999 (11th Cir. 1995); Tittle v.
Jefferson County Comm'n, 10 F.3d 1535, 1541 n.1 (11th Cir. 1994).
III.
At the outset, no action may lie against the State of Florida
or Governor Scott in his (former) official capacity because the
Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State brought by private
citizens.
Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66
(1989); McClendon v. Ga. Dep’t of Comm. Health, 261 F. 3d 1252,
1256 (11th Cir. 2001).
Further, Defendant Smith’s “title” as
“Esquire” does not implicate the Emoluments Clause. 2
To the extent
that the Amended Complaint attempts to articulate any other claim
against Defendant Smith, the Amended Complaint fails to state a
claim under § 1983.
The Supreme Court has held that a public
defender “does not act under color of state law when performing a
lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a
criminal proceeding.”
Polk County, et al. v. Dodson, 454 U.S.
312, 325 (1981) (footnote omitted); Hall v. Tallie, 597 F. App’x
2
The Emoluments Clause, U.S.C.A. Const. Art. I § 9, cl.8
provides:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United
States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or
Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the
Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or
Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or
foreign State.
- 5 -
1042, 1044 (11th Cir. 2015); Grinder v. Cook, 522 F. App’x 544,
547 (11th Cir. 2007).
Consequently, Ms. Smith and the Public
Defender’s Office are not deemed state actors and no viable § 1983
claim is stated to the extent the Amended Complaint attributes
liability to Ms. Smith or her Office in connection with their
handling,
or
alleged
mishandling,
of
Plaintiff’s
underlying
criminal case.
The Amended Complaint is otherwise completely devoid of any
facts against Defendants Governor Scott or Sheriff Scott in either
their
individual
or
official
capacities.
To
the
extent
the
Amended Complaint refers to these individuals by the generic use
of
term
purported
“Defendants,”
legal
the
Amended
conclusions.
Complaint
“[C]onclusory
contains
only
allegations,
unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading
as facts will not prevent dismissal.”
Smith v. Owens, 625 F.
App’x 924, 926 (11th Cir. 2015)(quoting Oxford Asset Mgmt., Ltd.
V. Jaharis, 297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002)).
Plaintiff’s request that the Court “dismiss all charges” or
his claims that he has been subjected to excessive bail or denied
a speedy trial are not obtainable through a § 1983 action.
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475. 487, 489 (1973).
See
“[H]abeas
corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges
the fact or duration of [her] confinement and seeks immediate or
speedier release[.]” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994).
- 6 -
Consequently, if Plaintiff wishes to bring an action based upon
the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against excessive bail or force
the State to promptly bring him to trial, Plaintiff should seek
relief via an individual pretrial habeas corpus petition pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after he has exhausted his state court
remedies.
410
U.S.
See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky,
484,
488
(1973)
(holding
that
state
petitioner
“is
entitled to raise a speedy trial claim” prior to trial to force
the state to bring him to trial); Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 5-6
(1951)(The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive bail is
actionable in a pretrial habeas proceeding).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. #32) is DISMISSED.
2. The Clerk of Court shall terminate any pending motions,
enter judgment and close this file.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of December, 2018.
SA: FTMP-1
Copies:
Counsel of Record
- 7 -
19th
day
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?