Fleissner v. State of Florida et al
Filing
3
ORDER dismissing the action; directing the Clerk to ENTER JUDGMENT against Fleissner and to CLOSE the case. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 11/17/2014. (BK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
GARY FLEISSNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 8:14-cv-2791-T-23TBM
STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
Fleissner moves for a “Declaratory Judgment” (Doc. 1) but with neither an
underlying civil rights complaint nor a habeas application. Fleissner complains that he
was convicted based on an information that was invalid under state law. Fleissner
neither moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis nor submits a filing fee. Because
he proceeds pro se, Fleissner’s paper receives a generous interpretation. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (per curiam). Nevertheless, Fleissner’s action lacks merit.
The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act requires dismissal of a prisoner’s action if
the action “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Although he requests only declaratory relief,
Fleissner’s action is subject to sua sponte dismissal because his claim challenges the
validity of a conviction. Consequently, Fleissner’s application “is governed by § 2254
because Appellant is ‘in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.’” Medberry
v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1054 (11th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1032 (2004).
According to the website for the Florida Department of Corrections, Fleissner is
confined based on the same 2011 conviction from Sarasota County (2009-CF-008333)
that he seeks to challenge in this action. According to the website for the Second
District Court of Appeal, Fleissner’s direct appeal (2D11-2125) concluded in 2012.
Consequently, Fleissner’s federal one-year limitation expired in 2013 and he is now
time-barred from challenging his conviction under Section 2254. See Lackawanna
County District Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 398, 403 (2001) (“[W]e hold that once a state
conviction is no longer open to direct or collateral attack in its own right because the
defendant failed to pursue those remedies while they were available (or because the
defendant did so unsuccessfully), the conviction may be regarded as conclusively
valid.”). Fleissner forfeited his opportunity to challenge the validity of the charging
information by not asserting that issue in a timely application under Section 2254.
Additionally, Fleissner cannot challenge the validity of his conviction in a civil
rights action. When a state prisoner challenges the fact or duration of his confinement,
a writ of habeas corpus is his exclusive federal remedy. Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S.
475, 500 (1973). This long-standing principle was affirmed in Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (emphasis original).
We hold that, in order to recover damages for [an] allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm
caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction
or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the
-2-
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal
authorized to make such determination, or called into question
by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a
conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not
cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a state prisoner seeks
damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether
a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the
invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the
complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate
that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.
To summarize, Fleissner contends that the state court had no jurisdiction
because the information was invalid. A plaintiff’s “contention that the state courts
lacked jurisdiction over his criminal proceedings would necessarily imply the invalidity
of his criminal conviction, and § 1983 therefore [is] not an appropriate vehicle for his
argument.” Waterfield v. Laboda, 518 Fed. App’x 667 (11th Cir.),* cert. denied, 134 S.
Ct. 639 (2013),
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED. The clerk must enter a judgment
against Fleissner and close this case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on November 17, 2014.
*
“Unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, but they may be cited as
persuasive authority.” 11th Cir. Rule 36-2.
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?