Deters v. State Of Florida

Filing 6

ORDER: Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The CLERK is directed to CLOSE this case and terminate any pending motions as moot. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 4/5/2013. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

RAY DETERS, pro se,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:13-cv-758-T-30TGW

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court sua sponte. The claims filed by pro se Plaintiff
Ray Deters in this action are substantially similar to the claims Plaintiff filed in Case No.
8:09-cv-1388-T-30MAP (the “First Case”) and Case No. 8:09-cv-2563-T-30EAJ (the
“Second Case”). In the First Case, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss without
prejudice to Plaintiff to re-file his claims if Plaintiff established that his DUI conviction was
invalidated by the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida. At that time, Plaintiff’s appeal
of his conviction was still pending before the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida.1
In the Second Case, Plaintiff’s complaint noted that the Second District Court of
Appeal denied his appeal. Accordingly, consistent with the Court’s November 3, 2009 order

1

The Court’s November 3, 2009 order in Case No. 8:09-cv-1388-T-30MAP at Dkt. 12
provides a discussion of Plaintiff’s claims and the application of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994).

in Case No. 8:09-cv-1388-T-30MAP at Docket 12, Plaintiff’s claims in the Second Case
were Heck-barred and the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.
The instant complaint seeks the same relief: Plaintiff requests that the Court remove
his DUI conviction. For the reasons stated in the First Case and the Second Case, Plaintiff’s
complaint is dismissed with prejudice.2 Any future filings by Plaintiff on this issue may be
deemed vexatious at the Court’s discretion.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

2.

The CLERK is directed to CLOSE this case and terminate any pending
motions as moot.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on April 5, 2013.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Even\2013\13-cv-758.dismissal.frm

2

Notably, the district courts within the Eleventh Circuit continue to apply the rule of Heck
v. Humphrey to prevent a plaintiff from using section 1983 as a vehicle to collaterally attack a court
conviction and later imprisonment without a favorable termination, even though the plaintiff never
had access to federal habeas review. See Barnes v. City of Dothan, 842 F. Supp .2d 1332 (M.D. Ala.
2012); Domotor v. Wennet, 630 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (S.D. Fla. 2009).
Page 2 of 2