Hans C. Anderson vs Secretary Department of Corrections et al

Filing 3

ORDER: The complaint 1 is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close this case. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 4/9/2012. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

HANS C. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:12-CV-725-T-30AEP

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
Anderson, an inmate of the Florida penal system proceeding pro se, initiated this
action by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Dkt. 1), and a motion
to proceed in this action in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2). Anderson alleges in the complaint that
he was told by a judge and prison officials that after he serves his sentence with the
Department of Corrections, he will be civilly detained at the Florida Civil Commitment
Center. As relief, Anderson requests immediate release from incarceration or a seven year
reduction of his sentence (Dkt. 1 at p. 8).
Analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a district court must screen prisoners’ civil complaints
against government officials or entities and dismiss the complaints if they are frivolous,
malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. In pertinent part, § 1915A provides:

(a)

Screening.--The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in
any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity.

(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. The language of the statute does not distinguish between prisoners who
proceed in forma pauperis and prisoners who pay the requisite filing fee.
The procedure required by § 1915A is by its terms a screening process, to be applied
sua sponte and as early as possible in the litigation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Because
defendant is a governmental entity, Anderson’s complaint is subject to review pursuant
§1915A.
In light of Anderson’s claim for relief, his exclusive remedy is a petition for writ of
habeas corpus. See Pugh v. Smith, 333 Fed. Appx. 478, 479 (11th Cir. June 24, 2009)
(unpublished) (stating that “[a] habeas petition is the exclusive remedy for a prisoner who
challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate release.”) (citing in
part Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973)). As the United States Supreme Court
also reaffirmed based on its prior precedent in Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005), “a
state prisoner's § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) - no matter the relief sought

-2-

(damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading
to conviction or internal prison proceedings)- if success in that action would necessarily
demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Robinson v. McDonough, 259
Fed. Appx. 238 (11th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (emphasis in original) (citing and quoting
Preiser and Wilkinson). 1
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that:
1.

The complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.

2.

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close this case.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on April 9, 2012.

SA:sfc
Copy to: Plaintiff pro se

1

To the extent the complaint may be construed as either a petition for writ of mandamus or writ of habeas corpus
prohibiting civil detainment in the future, the Court deems the relief premature as Anderson has not yet been declared
a sexually violent predator in need of civil commitment pursuant to Sections 394.910-.931, Florida Statutes. Maharaj
v. Sec’y Dep’t of Corr., 304 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2002) (federal habeas petition was not ripe for review when state
judgment was not yet final).

-3-