Griffin et al v. State of Florida et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiffs' Complaint (filing no. 1 ) is dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiffs failed to comply with this court's orders. All pending motions are denied. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ARTHUR JAMES GRIFFIN JR., and )
SYBRINA FULTON, Sanford,
)
Florida,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
STATE OF FLORIDA, City Sanford, )
GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, City
)
Sanford (FLA.), and STATE
)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
)
FLORIDA,
)
)
Defendants.
)

4:12CV3083

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On April 25, 2012, Plaintiff
Arthur James Griffin, Jr. (“Griffin”), filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (“IFP”). (Filing No. 2.) On May 23, 2012, the court granted Griffin’s IFP
Motion and assessed an initial partial filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
(Filing No. 10.) In doing so, the court warned Griffin that his case would be subject
to dismissal if he failed to pay the initial partial filing fee by June 22, 2012. (Id.)
Rather than pay the initial partial filing fee, Griffin has filed numerous motions
to change venue, amend, and quash. (See Filing Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20
and 21.) These Motions are difficult to decipher. Most reference a state court
criminal case “CR12-14863” and one asks the court to reconsider Griffin’s sentence.
(See Filing Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 20.) To the extent that Griffin seeks to
challenge his conviction or sentence, he must do so in a habeas corpus proceeding.
Indeed, as the Supreme Court set forth in Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973),
and Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), if success on the merits of a civil rights
claim would necessarily implicate the validity of a prisoner’s conviction or continued

confinement, the civil rights claim must be preceded by a favorable outcome in a
habeas corpus or similar proceeding in a state or federal forum. Absent such a
favorable disposition of the charges or conviction, a plaintiff may not use 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 to cast doubt on the legality of his conviction or confinement. See Heck, 512
U.S. at 486-87; see also Smith v. Holtz, 87 F.3d 108, 113 (3d Cir. 1996) (applying
Heck to a claim that would implicate the validity of a future conviction on a pending
criminal charge).
Liberally construed, filing number 11 asks the court to transfer this case to the
“United States District Court [for the] District of Florida,” and to contact Plaintiff
Sybrina Fulton to pay the filing fee. (Filing No. 11.) However, Plaintiff Sybrina
Fulton (“Fulton”) has not signed the Complaint in this matter. (See Filing No. 1.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 states that “every pleading . . . must be signed by
at least one attorney of record . . . or by a party personally if the party is
unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). On July 10, 2012, the court entered a text
notice of deficiency regarding Fulton’s signature and mailed it to the address
provided by Plaintiffs. (Filing No. 18.) In doing so, the court warned Fulton that the
Complaint could be stricken if the deficiency was not corrected within 15 days. (Id.)
The deficiency deadline set forth in the court’s July 10, 2012, Memorandum
and Order has now passed and Fulton failed to sign the Complaint. (See Docket
Sheet.) Because Fulton failed to sign the Complaint by the court’s deadline, she is
dismissed from this action. As for Griffin, the June 22, 2012, deadline has passed and
he has not paid the initial partial filing fee in this matter. (Id.) Therefore, Griffin is
also dismissed from this matter for failing to comply with the court’s May 23, 2012,
Memorandum and Order. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(b); see also Conley v. Holden, No.
03-3908, 2004 WL 2202452, at *1 (8th Cir. Sept. 21, 2004) (affirming district court’s
dismissal of inmate’s case for failing to pay the assessed initial partial filing fee).

2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint (filing no. 1) is dismissed without prejudice
because Plaintiffs failed to comply with this court’s orders.
2.

All pending motions are denied.

3.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.
DATED this 2nd day of August, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
3