De Jesus Rodriguez v. State of Florida et al

Filing 3

ORDER dismissing case Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 2/16/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

LUIS A. DE JESUS RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:17-cv-276-Orl-37GJK

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER
This cause is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Complaint
(“Complaint,” Doc. 1). Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of Florida 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
without prejudice.
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s allegations involve his underlying state court criminal proceedings.
Plaintiff asserts that the state attorneys involved in prosecuting his case, along with the
public defenders who represented him, violated his constitutional rights during those
proceedings. (Doc. 1 at 8-9). Plaintiff also alleges that the detectives who investigated
his case were involved in an “illegal search” and “falsified” documents pertaining to his
case. (Id. at 9). According to Plaintiff, he is “actually innocent” of the crimes of which
he was convicted, and he has been “falsely imprisoned.” (Id. at 8-9).

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 read a plaintiff's pro se allegations in a liberal
fashion. 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).

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

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
demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated, the complaint
must be dismissed. Id.
To prevail on his claims in the instant case, Plaintiff must necessarily establish
that he did not commit the offense of which he was convicted. Hence, a judgment in
Plaintiff's favor in this case would necessarily imply the invalidity of his underlying
conviction. Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his conviction has already been
invalidated, this case is barred under Heck. See id. at 487. As a result, this case 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. 1) is DENIED.

3.

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

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 16th, 2017.

3

Copies furnished to:
Unrepresented Party
OrlP-2 2/17

4