Broxton v. State of Florida

Filing 2

ORDER dismissing case Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 5/17/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

ARTAVIUS BROXTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:17-cv-865-Orl-37DCI

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Defendant.
/

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 has not
paid the filing fee or moved 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 claims that “the State of Florida [is] in violation of Double Jeopardy which
is unconstitutional[] . . . .” (Doc. 1 at 6). He requests that the Court “investigate the 18th
Judicial Circuit . . . .” (Id. at 5).
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).
III.

ANALYSIS

Absent a State’s consent, the Eleventh Amendment bars a civil rights suit in a
federal court that names the State as a defendant, even a claim seeking injunctive
relief. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978). The Eleventh Amendment bar
extends to suits against departments or agencies of the State having no existence apart
from the State. See Mt. Health City Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280

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

(1977).

Consequently, in the present case, Defendant State of Florida cannot be

named as a Defendant in a section 1983 suit.

See Oliver v. Supreme Court of

Pennsylvania, No. Civ. A. No. 88-8171, 1989 WL 1592 (E.D. Pa. January 12, 1989).
Accordingly, this case is dismissed as frivolous.
IV.

CONCLUSION

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

This case is DISMISSED.

2.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant

and to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 17th, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Unrepresented Party
OrlP-2 5/17

3