Maciejka v. Williams et al

Filing 71

Order Adopting in Part Magistrate Judges Report And Recommendation; denying 66 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution; Adopting in Part 68 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 7/26/2018. See attached document for full details. (ail)

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Steven Maciejka, Plaintiff,
v.
Jabaria Williams and others,
Defendants.

)
)
)
Civil Action No. 16-21031-Civ-Scola
)
)
)

Order Adopting in Part Magistrate Judge’s Report And Recommendation
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Patrick A.
White, consistent with Administrative Order 2003-19 of this Court, for a ruling
on all pre-trial, nondispositive matters and for a report and recommendation
on any dispositive matters. On March 21, 2018, Judge White issued a report,
recommending that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 66) be denied,
and that upon a screening in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Plaintiff’s
First Amendment free exercise claims be allowed to proceed and limited to a
request for nominal damages, and that the Plaintiff’s other claims be
dismissed. (Report, ECF No. 68.) Judge White also recommended that the
Plaintiff not be granted further leave to amend his complaint. The Plaintiff has
not filed objections to the report, and the time to do so has long passed.
Nevertheless, the Court must review Judge White’s report for clear error. See
Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
The Court has considered Judge White’s report, the record, and the
relevant legal authorities. The Court adopts in part and declines to adopt in
part Judge White’s report (ECF No. 68). The Court adopts Judge White’s
recommendation as to the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and hereby denies
the Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 66).
The Court, however, declines to adopt the recommendations
Judge White made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Section 1915A allows
courts to screen cases in which “a prisoner seeks redress against a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); see also Thompson v. Hicks, 213 F. App’x 939, 942 (11th
Cir. 2007) (finding § 1915A applicable where plaintiff was a prisoner who filed a
complaint against government officers and employees). The statute defines the
term “prisoner” in relevant part as “any person incarcerated or detained in any
facility.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c). The Plaintiff was not a prisoner when he

filed the present suit. Therefore, § 1915A does not apply. See Olivas v. Nevada
ex rel. Dep’t of Corrs., 856 F.3d 1281, 1282 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that former
prisoner who was not in custody when he filed suit was not subject to § 1915A
screening provisions). Cf. Schaller v. United States, No. 3:10cv444/WS/EMT,
2011 WL 7052267, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29 2011) (concluding that § 1915A
provision applied notwithstanding release from custody because of the
plaintiff’s custodial status at the time of filing), report and recommendation
adopted by Schaller v. United States, No. 3:10cv444–WS, 2012 WL 136007, at
*1 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2012). Nor do the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C
§ 1915(e) apply since the Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis and paid
the filing fee (ECF No. 22) upon Judge White’s denial of his motion to proceed
in forma pauperis (ECF No. 16). Thompson, 213 F. App’x at 942 (“Section
1915(e) applies only to plaintiffs who proceed in forma pauperis.”). Given that
the Defendants did not make arguments regarding the substance of the
Plaintiff’s claims in their motion to dismiss, the Court will allow all of the
Plaintiff’s claims to proceed as alleged in his latest complaint (ECF No. 65).
The Court is also aware of the Plaintiff’s settlement offer. (Decl., ECF No.
70.) If the case is not going to be settled, the Defendants shall file an answer on
or before August 15, 2018.
Done and ordered, at Miami, Florida, on July 26, 2018.

_______________________________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge