Bristol v. Palm Bay Police Department et al

Filing 6

ORDER dismissing case Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 5/4/2016. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

ANTHONY PHILIP BRISTOL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:16-cv-751-Orl-37GJK

PALM BAY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et
al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER
This cause is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Complaint
(“Complaint,” Doc. 1). Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at the Brevard County Jail and
proceeding pro se, filed the Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks to
proceed in forma pauperis in this action. For the reasons stated herein, the Complaint
will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that on March 11, 2016, he was arrested for a crime that
occurred on September 5, 2015. (Doc. 1 at 5). Plaintiff was charged with “armed
burglary dwelling/structure—agg asslt and agg assault w/ deadly weapon with out intent
to kill.” (Id.). Plaintiff denies committing the crimes, and he seeks money damages and
“emergency release.” (Id. at 7).
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Plaintiff seeks redress from a governmental entity or employee, and, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. section 1915A(a), the Court is obligated to screen such a prisoner civil rights

complaint as soon as practicable. On review, the Court is required to dismiss the
complaint (or any portion thereof) under the following circumstances:
(b)

Grounds for Dismissal.--On review, the court shall identify
cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the
complaint, if the complaint-(1)

is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or

(2)

seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.

28 U.S.C. §1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (“[n]otwithstanding 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 . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous or
malicious.”). 1 Additionally, the Court must liberally construe a plaintiff's pro se
allegations. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
“To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must prove (1) a
violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a
person acting under color of state law.” Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256, 1258 (11th
Cir. 2005).
III.

ANALYSIS

Under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), a state prisoner may not
bring a claim for damages under § 1983 “if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction.” Thus, unless the plaintiff-prisoner can

1“A

claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or in fact.” Bilal v.
Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001).
2

demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated, the complaint
must be dismissed. Id.
Further, the rule of Heck v. Humphrey “applies not only to convicted persons but
also to plaintiffs . . . who as yet only face prosecution.” Wiley v. City of Chicago, 361
F.3d 994, 996 (7th Cir. 2004). “In other words, where charges are outstanding against a
plaintiff and his constitutional claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of a potential
conviction, the action would be barred under Heck.” Newman v. Leon County Comm’rs,
No. 4:08cv474–SPM/WCS, 2009 WL 62652, at *2 (N.D. Fla. January 7, 2009).
To prevail on his claims in the instant case, Plaintiff must necessarily establish
(1) that, as to the offense of which he was convicted, the conviction or sentence had
been reversed, expunged, or otherwise declared invalid, and (2) as to the pending
charge, the charges were resolved favorably to him. Plaintiff has failed to do so, and
the Complaint is barred under Heck and will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
state a claim.
IV.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

This case is DISMISSED.

2.

Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED.

3.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 4th, 2016.

3

Copies furnished to:
Unrepresented Party
OrlP-2 5/4

4