Vashey v. Orfinger et al

Filing 3

ORDER dismissing case Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 8/29/2016. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
EDWARD R. VASHEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 6:16-cv-1509-Orl-37GJK

JUSTICE ORFINGER, et al.,
Defendants.

/
ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of Florida proceeding pro se, initiated this action by
filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 (Doc. 1).
I.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(b), the Court is required to perform a judicial review
of certain civil suits brought by prisoners to determine whether the suit should proceed:1
(b)

Ground for Dismissal - On review, the court shall identify cognizable
claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint (1)
(2)

1This

is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.

review process was implemented in an effort to reduce meritless prisoner
litigation. Green v. Nottingham, 90 F.3d 415, 417 (10th Cir. 1996); see H.R.Rep. No. 104-378,
104th Cong., 1st Sess. 166.

Thus, the Courts are obligated to screen prisoners’ civil rights complaints as soon
as practicable and to dismiss those actions which are frivolous or malicious or fail to state
a claim for relief. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e). A complaint is frivolous if it is without arguable
merit either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Cofield v. Alabama
Public Service Com'n, 936 F.2d 512, 515 (11th Cir. 1991); Prather v. Norman, 901 F.2d 915
(11th Cir. 1990). Additionally, the Court must read a plaintiff’s pro se allegations in a
liberal fashion. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Miller v. Stanmore, 636 F.2d 986, 988
(5th Cir. 1981).
II.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff brought this action against Judges Orfinger, Evander, and Wallis (Doc. 1
at 1-18). Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated his rights to equal protection when
they denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus in the state court and issued an order
preventing him from filing additional pro se documents. Id. at 5-10. Plaintiff also alleges
that Defendants are seeking to protect the state prosecutors, who committed perjury
and/or a fraud upon the state court when they lied in the charging documents. Id. at 15.
Plaintiff states that he was “unjustly tried and convicted of a second degree felony
without there ever being filed [sic] with the trial court any valid or legal information,
indictment, or charging document . . . .” Id. at 5, 11.
Defendant Judges are entitled to absolute immunity from damages for actions
taken while acting in their judicial capacity unless they acted in the clear absence of all
jurisdiction. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9-12 (1991); Manning v. Harper, 460 F. App’x 872,
876 (11th Cir. 2012). The actions of which Plaintiff complains were taken while

Defendants were acting within their judicial capacity. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that
Defendants acted in the clear absence of their jurisdiction. Because Plaintiff has failed to
state a viable claim for relief, he cannot proceed with the instant ' 1983 action. Thus, the
instant case is subject to dismissal. 2
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

This case is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim on which relief may be

granted.
2.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any pending motions, enter

Judgment, and close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida this 29th day of August, 2016.

Copies to:
OrlP-3 8/29
Edward R. Vashey

To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to challenge his state court conviction, he
may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with the
appropriate court.
3
2