The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JOSHUA I. MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 2:22-cv-350-SPC-NPM
KRISTEN KANNER, MELINDA
MASTERS, COURTNEY JONES
and MICHELLE FEISZLI,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is Joshua I. Martinez’s Request to Proceed as a
Conscientious Objector (Doc. 1), which the Court construes as a civil rights
complaint. Martinez moved to proceed in forma pauperis, so the Court must
review the complaint sua sponte to determine whether it is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary damages against a party
who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2).
Martinez is a civil detainee at the Florida Civil Commitment Center
(FCCC), a facility that houses and treats sexually violent predators after their
1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using
hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties
or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The
Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed
hyperlink does not affect this Order.
terms of incarceration. See Pesci v. Budz, 730 F.3d 1291, 1299 (11th Cir. 2013).
As part of his treatment, Martinez is in a “Disclosure and Discovery” therapy
group, which requires Martinez to recount the victimization of those he
sexually abused to a group of other FCCC residents before moving on to the
next phase of treatment. (Doc. 1 at 3). Martinez is not comfortable with this
requirement, and he wants the Court to “grant that petitioner may proceed in
treatment as a conscientious objector to ‘Disclosure and Discovery’ therapeutic
group sessions.” (Id. at 7).
It is not clear what Martinez wants from this action. A “conscientious
objector” is a person deemed exempt “from combatant training and service in
the armed forces of the Unites States” because his or her “religious training
and belief are conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.”
United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 at 164-65 (1965). That term has no
relevance here. Setting it aside and reading the complaint liberally, the Court
assumes Martinez wants an order allowing him to progress in FCCC treatment
without participating fully in the Disclosure and Discovery sessions.
Martinez alleges Defendants are violating his First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights. The First Amendment claim is a nonstarter. Martinez
points to the right to assemble, but he has not alleged any plausible—or even
possible—infringement of that right. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees
Martinez, as a committed civil detainee, “reasonably safe conditions of
confinement, freedom from unreasonable bodily restraints, and such
minimally adequate training or ‘habilitation’ as reasonably may be required by
these interests.” Pesci, 730 F.3d at 1298 (quoting Youngberg v. Romeo, 457
U.S. 307, 314-19)). When balancing a detainee’s liberty interests against the
relevant state interests, “courts must show deference to the judgment
exercised by a qualified professional.” Id. (quoting Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 322).
Courts need only “make certain that professional judgment in fact was
exercised.” Id. (quoting Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321).
Martinez has not pled a plausible violation of his Fourteenth
Amendment rights. FCCC officials “may justify a civil detention regulation
based on its valid, rational connection to legitimate interests in…the
rehabilitation and treatment of civil detainees[.]” Id. at 1298. The
requirement that Martinez participate in “Discovery and Disclosure” group
therapy sessions clearly is rationally related to his treatment and
rehabilitation. Martinez alleges no facts plausibly suggesting that Defendants
declined to exercise their professional judgment in adopting the requirement.
What is more, Martinez seeks relief the Court cannot grant. If the
Court’s liberal interpretation of the complaint is correct, Martinez asks the
Court to micromanage his treatment and rehabilitation by overriding
Defendants’ professional judgment. Supreme Court precedent prohibits the
Court from becoming “enmeshed in the minutiae of [FCCC] operations.” Lewis
v. Casey, 518 U.S. 348, 362 (1996) (citation omitted). This Court cannot insert
its judgment into FCCC therapy sessions and tell Defendants how to best treat
and rehabilitate Martinez.
The Court will dismiss Martinez’s complaint without prejudice because
it does not state a plausible claim. Amendment appears futile because
Martinez seeks relief the Court cannot grant. But if Martinez believes he can
state a plausible claim consistent with this Order and request appropriate
relief, he may file a new complaint, which will be assigned a new case number.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Joshua I. Martinez’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without
prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions and
deadlines, enter judgment for Defendants and against Plaintiff, and close this
case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on June 22, 2022.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SA: FTMP-1
Copies: All Parties of Record