WILLIAMS v. BOYD

Filing 7

ORDER deferring 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by TAVEREOUS WILLIAMS, and directing the clerk to mail to plaintiff a civil rights complaint and IFP application ( Amended Pleadings due by 1/3/2012., Motions due by 1/3/2012.)Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 12/1/11. (bkp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
TAVAREOUS WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No: 1:11-cv-171-SPM-GRJ

JEFFREY BOYD, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER
Plaintiff, a prisoner presently confined at Suwannee Correctional Institution,
initiated this case by filing a complaint and an amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C
§ 1983, and seeks leave to proceed as a pauper. Docs. 1, 2, 4. Plaintiff’s motion for
leave to proceed as a pauper is deficient because he failed to complete an affidavit of
indigency for prisoners, and failed to submit a certified copy of his prison account
statement for the six-month period preceding the filing of the Complaint. A ruling on the
motion will be deferred until such deficiencies are cured.
Further, the amended complaint is before the undersigned for screening
pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1915A, which provides that 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,” and shall dismiss the Complaint if it “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted[.]”
In this case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Officer Jeffrey Boyd violated his
rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments because Boyd conducted an

illegal detention and search of Plaintiff, and submitted a false affidavit and testimony in
Plaintiff’s criminal case. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Police Chief Joel DeCoursy
violated his rights by failing to prohibit police officers from engaging in illegal actions,
and by failing to take action on Plaintiff’s complaints.
To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that an
act or omission committed by a person acting under color of state law deprived him of a
right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Hale v. Tallapoosa County, 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir.1995). If a litigant cannot
satisfy these requirements, or fails to provide factual allegations in support of the
claims, then the complaint is subject to dismissal. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (noting that “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level,” and complaint “must contain something more
. . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally
cognizable right of action”); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1951-53
(2009) (Twombly “expounded the pleading standard for all civil actions,” and conclusory
allegations that “amount to nothing more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
constitutional . . . claim” are “not entitled to be assumed true,” and, to escape dismissal,
complaint must allege facts sufficient to move claims “across the line from conceivable
to plausible.”).
A pro se litigant's allegations are entitled to the benefit of liberal construction.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, a court does not have “license .
. . to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading [by a pro se litigant] in order to sustain an
action.” GJR Investments v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th

Cir.1998) (overruled on other grounds by Iqbal).
Initially, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has asserted no cognizable claims
against Chief DeCoursy. Chief DeCoursy cannot be held liable for the acts of Officer
Boyd simply because he was Boyd’s supervisor. Plaintiff’s claim that DeCoursy failed
to prevent officers from engaging in illegal conduct and failed to act on Plaintiff’s
complaints about Boyd are too vague to establish that DeCoursy should be liable to
Plaintiff under § 1983.
Further, Plaintiff may only “recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness
would render a conviction or sentence invalid” if he can demonstrate that the conviction
or sentence has been invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994).
Heck, however, does not necessarily bar Fourth Amendment claims. See Hughes v.
Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir.2003). “Because an illegal search or arrest may be
followed by a valid conviction, a successful § 1983 action for alleged Fourth
Amendment violations does not necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction.” Id.
Courts must look both to the claims raised under § 1983 and to the specific offenses for
which the § 1983 claimant was convicted. Vickers v. Donahue, 137 Fed. Appx. 285, 290
(11th Cir.2005) (unpublished opinion) (citing Hughes, 350 F.3d at 1160 n. 2). (quoting
Vickers, 137 Fed. Appx. at 290) (unpublished).
Plaintiff’s factual allegations are vague in that he does not explain exactly how
the alleged violation of his Fourth Amendment rights occurred, and whether such
violation pertains to the offense for which he is presently incarcerated. Thus, the Court
cannot determine whether Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Heck. Further, Plaintiff has

alleged no facts showing that the alleged violation caused him “actual, compensable
injury.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 478 n. 7. The “injury” of being convicted and imprisoned is
not encompassed within this phrase until the conviction has been overturned. Id.
Although a successful § 1983 Plaintiff could be entitled to nominal damages even if not
entitled to compensatory or punitive damages, such nominal damages ordinarily do not
exceed $1. Hughes, 350 F.3d at 1162; Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266–67 (1978).
The Court takes judicial notice of the records of Alachua County Circuit Court,
which reflect that Plaintiff was convicted in April 2011 of being a felon in possession of
a weapon or ammunition, and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. Plaintiff’s
conviction is pending on appeal. See State of Florida v. Williams, Case. No. 2010-CF4865 (Alachua County Circuit Court). If success on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment
claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of this conviction, then Plaintiff’s claims are
barred by Heck. Plaintiff will be required to file a second amended complaint that
clarifies the nature of his claims and the relationship of such claims to any sentence he
is serving.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

A ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed as a pauper, Doc. 2, is
DEFERRED. The Clerk shall forward the forms necessary for Plaintiff to
seek leave to proceed as a pauper, and Plaintiff shall complete the forms
and return them with the required account information on or before
January 3, 2012.

2.

The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form and
instructions. Plaintiff shall fully complete the complaint form using clearly
legible type or handwriting. In amending his Complaint, Plaintiff shall not
refer back to his original Complaint or incorporate any part of his original
Complaint by reference. Plaintiff shall set forth all of the specific offenses
for which he was convicted as well as specific factual allegations as to
how Defendant Boyd allegedly violated his Fourth Amendment rights, so
that the Court can determine whether Plaintiff's claims in this action would

necessarily imply the invalidity of Plaintiff's underlying conviction. Plaintiff
shall file the amended complaint, together with an identical service copy,
on or before January 3, 2012.
3.

Failure to comply with this order within the allotted time, or to show cause
why Plaintiff is unable to comply, will result in a recommendation to the
district judge that the case be dismissed without further notice for failure to
prosecute and for failure to obey an order of the court.
DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of December 2011.

s/Gary R. Jones
GARY R. JONES
United States Magistrate Judge