Garland v. B.S.O. Mail Crime Lab Deputy et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Closing Case. Motions terminated: 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Anthony Demetrius Garland. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 8/31/2015. (hs01) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.

15-61781-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

ANTHONY DEMETRIUS GARLAND,
Plaintiff,
vs.
B.S.O MAIL CRIME LAB DEPUTY, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte.

Plaintiff, Anthony Garland

(“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se, has filed a Complaint against forty Defendants, including various
Broward Sheriff’s Office deputies, several prosecutors and defense attorneys, Florida Circuit
Court Judges, Florida Supreme Court Justices, United States Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White,
and unidentified prison officials and correctional officers [ECF No. 1].

Because Plaintiff moved

to proceed in forma pauperis, the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e) are
applicable.

Pursuant to that statute, courts are permitted to dismiss a suit “any time [] the court

determines that . . . (B) the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.”

Id. § 1915(e)(2).

Upon initial screening, the Court finds Plaintiff’s

Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
To state a claim for relief, a pleading must contain: “(1) a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8.

Thereunder, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

“[T]o state a plausible claim for relief,

the plaintiff[] must plead ‘factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578
F.3d 1252, 1268 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949).
Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights,
resulting in his conviction and allegedly wrongful imprisonment. Plaintiff seeks damages for the
time he was “illegally held,” punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

Although Plaintiff has

named over twenty Defendants, he fails to identify with particularity how each Defendant
deprived him of his constitutional rights.

In addition, Plaintiff fails to sufficiently identify how

the Defendants conspired to wrongfully convict and imprison him.

Accordingly, Plaintiff fails

to state a claim for relief.
Plaintiff’s claims are also barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
When a prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the 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.” Id. Heck requires the dismissal of a civil rights action
that attacks the constitutionality of a plaintiff’s confinement unless the conviction or sentence has
been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by state tribunal
authorized to make such determination, or called into question by federal court's issuance of writ of
habeas corpus. Id. Because Plaintiff’s Complaint attacks the constitutionality of his conviction
2

and sentence even though his conviction and sentence stand, it must be dismissed. 1
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is

further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis is
DENIED and the Clerk is instructed to mark the case as CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 31st day of August, 2015.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:

Magistrate Judge Turnoff
All Counsel of Record

1
While in custody, Plaintiff filed over twenty civil actions challenging his state criminal conviction. See e.g.
08-cv-61144-MCG;
08-cv-61054-WPD;
08-cv-61052-AJ;
08-cv-61020-WPD;
08-cv-61322-WPD;
08-cv-61289-FAM; 09-cv-61291; 10-cv-60880-COHN; 12-cv-61507-KMM. In each case, Plaintiff makes the same
or similar allegations regarding his conviction. Each time, the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s claims. See Garland
v. State of Florida, et. al., Case No. 08-cv-61052-AJ (“Mr. Garland simply cannot use a § 1983 civil rights suit to
overturn his state criminal conviction.”). This action is no different from Plaintiff’s prior actions.

3