Longino v. Masters

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

SAMUEL LONGINO AND

WILLIS BAILEY,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 2:22-cv-672-JES-NPM

MELINDA MASTERS, JON CARNER,

COURTNEY JONES, AND

KERI FITZPATRICK,

Defendants.

________________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This cause is before the Court on consideration of Samuel

Longino’s and Willis Bailey’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs’”) pro se

civil rights complaint filed against four employees of the Florida

Civil Commitment Center (“FCCC”) in Arcadia, Florida. (Doc. 1).

Plaintiffs also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc.

4). Plaintiffs seek to bring this complaint as a class action on

behalf of themselves and 569 other residents of the FCCC. (Doc. 1

at 1).

Because Plaintiffs seek to proceed in forma pauperis, the

Court reviews the complaint to determine whether it is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). For the reasons

given below, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice to

any individual resident filing a separate complaint.

I. Complaint

Plaintiffs complain that the FCCC does not have an adequate

law library. (Doc. 1 at 6). Instead, the facility has a computer

lab with twenty computers for the entire resident population, with

only ten of those designated as legal computers. (Id. at 7).

This leaves residents who wish to do legal work with only four and

a half hours per week in the computer lab. (Id.) Moreover, the

FCCC employee who runs the lab is untrained in the law and has no

experience in conducting legal research via Lexis Nexis, and FCCC

residents are not allowed to provide legal advice to other

residents. (Id.) Therefore, neither the employee nor other

residents can assist fellow residents who use the computer lab for

legal purposes. (Id. at 8). Residents have asked the

administration to provide a “law library that would guarantee them

adequate, effective, and meaningful access to the courts.” (Id.)

Specifically, they have requested training on Lexis Nexis and on

drafting legal documents. (Id.) They also asked the facility to

hire a person trained in the law to run the library and provide

legal assistance. (Id.) However, their requests were denied or

unanswered by the defendants. (Id.)

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in the form of an adequate

law library and a resident legal assistance program to educate

residents on Lexis Nexis and on the preparation of legal documents.

(Doc. 1 at 11).

II. Standard of Review

A federal district court is required to review a civil

complaint filed in forma pauperis and to dismiss any such complaint

that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The mandatory language

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 applies to all proceedings in forma pauperis.1

Specifically, the section provides:

Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion

thereof, that may have been paid, the court

shall dismiss the case at any time if the court

determines that--

(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or

(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.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

1 Despite Plaintiffs’ non-prisoner status, this complaint is

subject to initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See

Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2002) (recognizing

that the district court did not err when it dismissed a complaint

filed by a civil detainee for failure to state a claim under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845

(9th Cir. 2001) (determining that section 1915(e)(2)(B) is not

limited to prisoners, but applies to all persons proceeding in

forma pauperis).

A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous under §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i) where it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim is

frivolous as a matter of law where, among other things, the

defendants are immune from suit, or the claim seeks to enforce a

right that clearly does not exist. Id. at 327. In addition,

where an affirmative defense would defeat a claim, it may be

dismissed as frivolous. Clark v. Georgia Pardons & Paroles Bd.,

915 F.2d 636, 640 n.2 (11th Cir. 1990).

The phrase “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted” has the same meaning as the nearly identical phrase in

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Mitchell v.

Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997) (“The language of

section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks the language of Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and we will apply Rule 12(b)(6) standards

in reviewing dismissals under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).”) That

is, although a complaint need not provide detailed factual

allegations, there “must be enough to raise a right to relief above

the speculative level,” and the complaint must contain enough facts

to state a claim that is “plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007).

In making the above determinations, all factual allegations

(as opposed to legal conclusions) in the complaint must be viewed

as true. Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1347 (11th Cir. 2004).

Moreover, the Court must read the plaintiff’s pro se allegations

in a liberal fashion. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).

III. Analysis

A. Plaintiffs cannot bring a civil rights action on

behalf of fellow residents.

Plaintiffs filed this complaint on behalf of all FCCC

residents. A prerequisite for class-action certification is a

finding by the Court that the representative party or parties can

“fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). The Court cannot make this finding. The

Eleventh Circuit has been clear that a non-lawyer proceeding pro

se may not represent the interests of others. See Bass v. Benton,

408 F. App’x 298, 298 (11th Cir. 2011) (“We have interpreted 28

U.S.C. § 1654, the general provision permitting parties to proceed

pro se, as providing ‘a personal right that does not extend to the

representation of the interests of others.’”)(quoting Timson v.

Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 873 (11th Cir. 2008)); Wallace v. Smith,

145 F. App’x 300, 302 (11th Cir. 2005) (“It is plain error to

permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to

represent his fellow inmates in a class action.”).

Accordingly, this “class-action” complaint will be dismissed

without prejudice to each resident filing his own 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint and any appropriate motions.

B. Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may

be granted.

Even if the Court construes this complaint as filed solely on

behalf of Mr. Longino, he has not stated a claim upon which relief

can be granted. There is no freestanding constitutional right

to a law library or legal assistance. Rather, when alleging a

denial of meaningful access to the courts, Mr. Longino (or any

other plaintiff) must “go one step further and demonstrate that

the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program

hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim.” Lewis v. Casey,

518 U.S. 343, 351(1996). In other words, to have standing to

bring this action, Mr. Longino must show an actual injury caused

by the FCCC’s failure to allow him adequate access to the courts.

This is because, while the courts may provide relief to claimants

who suffer actual or imminent harm, it is not the Court’s role “to

shape the institutions of government in such fashion as to comply

with the laws and the Constitution.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349 (.

IV. Conclusion

Because they have not alleged an actual or imminent injury,

Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action in a personal

capacity. In addition, Plaintiffs may not bring a class action

case on behalf of other residents of the FCCC. Accordingly, the

complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief

may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Because this dismissal

is based on circumstances that cannot be changed in an amended

complaint (standing and class certification), providing Plaintiffs

an opportunity to amend the complaint would be futile. See

Silberman v. Miami Dade Transit, 927 F.3d 1123, 1133 (11th Cir.

2019) (recognizing that no leave to amend is required when doing

so would be futile).

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ class action complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED

without prejudice to any individual resident filing his

own 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint along with a filing fee

or motion to proceed as a pauper.

2, The Clerk of Court is directed to deny any pending

motions as moot, close this case, and enter judgment

accordingly.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on November 30, 2022.

9 at of

off | 0 hy Akiel

JGHN E. STEELE

SHNIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SA: FTMP-2

Copies to: Samuel Longino and Willis Bailey