Harris v. Russell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

JONTE DOMINIQUE HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:23-cv-456-BJD-JBT

MICHAEL J. RUSSELL, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, Jonte Dominique Harris, a pretrial detainee at the John E.

Goode Pre-Trial Detention Facility in Jacksonville, Florida, initiated this

action pro se by filing a complaint for the violation of civil rights (Doc. 1;

Compl.) with exhibits (Doc. 1-1; Pl. Ex.). He seeks to proceed in forma pauperis

(Docs. 2, 6). The exhibits Plaintiff provides with his complaint show the

following: Plaintiff was arrested on October 19, 2018, and has been charged in

Duval County case number 2018-CF-10892 with aggravated child abuse, child

neglect, and murder; and during the course of their investigation, detectives

searched cell phones (and a backpack)1 obtained from Plaintiff’s girlfriend’s

stepfather, to whom Plaintiff and his girlfriend had given their belongings

1 It is unclear whether the backpack was Plaintiff’s.

when they were taken in for questioning in connection with the girlfriend’s

daughter’s death. Pl. Ex. at 1, 3-4, 6, 18.

In his complaint, Plaintiff names four Defendants: two homicide

detectives, Michael J. Russell, and D.W. Molina; and two digital forensic

examiners, Craig Williams, and C.R. Lombardozzi. Compl. at 2-3. Plaintiff

complains that the search warrants obtained to search his cell phone and the

backpack were illegal, or that detectives “fabricated documents” or relied on

incomplete information to obtain search warrants, and, as a result, he has been

“falsely imprisoned.” Id. at 6, 8. He claims Defendants’ conduct violated the

“[r]ights listed in the U.S. Constitution,” including the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth,

Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 3-4. As relief, Plaintiff seeks

damages, although he also contends that he will be irreparably harmed if the

Court does not issue unspecified “declaratory and injunctive relief.” Id. at 9,

11, 14.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires a district court to

dismiss a complaint if the court determines the action is frivolous, malicious,

or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§

1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b)(1). With respect to whether a complaint “fails to state

a claim on which relief may be granted,” the language of the PLRA mirrors the

language of Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, so courts apply the

2

same standard in both contexts. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th

Cir. 1997). See also Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008).

“To survive a motion to dismiss, 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic

recitation of the elements of a cause of action” that amount to “naked

assertions” will not suffice. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A complaint

must “contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material

elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.” Roe

v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2001)

(quoting In re Plywood Antitrust Litig., 655 F.2d 627, 641 (5th Cir. Unit A Sept.

8, 1981)).

To state a plausible civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege that a

person acting under the color of state law deprived him of a right secured under

the United States Constitution or federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although

Plaintiff claims Defendants violated multiple constitutional amendments,

given he contends he was “falsely imprisoned” and challenges the search of his

cell phone, only the Fourth Amendment is implicated. “A claim of false arrest

or imprisonment under the Fourth Amendment concerns seizures without

3

legal process, such as warrantless arrests.” Williams v. Aguirre, 965 F.3d 1147,

1158 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388-89 (2007)). If

an officer had probable cause for an arrest, the arrestee may not later sue the

officer under a theory of false arrest. Brown v. City of Huntsville, Ala., 608 F.3d

724, 734 (11th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he existence of probable cause at the time of

arrest is an absolute bar to a subsequent constitutional challenge to the

arrest.”). See also Wood v. Kesler, 323 F.3d 872, 878 (11th Cir. 2003) (“An arrest

does not violate the Fourth Amendment if a police officer has probable cause

for the arrest.”). A claim for malicious prosecution, on the other hand, accrues

when a seizure happens “pursuant to legal process” and requires a plaintiff to

allege officers “instituted or continued a criminal prosecution against him, with

malice and without probable cause, that terminated in his favor and caused

damage to him.” Williams, 965 F.3d at 1157 (internal quotation marks

omitted).

To the extent Plaintiff challenges his arrest, he does not allege officers

lacked probable cause. See Compl. at 6-9. Rather, Plaintiff challenges the post-

arrest search of his cell phone (and a backpack). See id. Plaintiff was arrested

for aggravated child abuse on October 19, 2018. See Clerk Online Resource

ePortal (CORE), available at https://core.duvalclerk.com (last visited Sept. 26,

2023). A judge issued a search warrant on October 29, 2018. See Pl. Ex. at 36-

4

39. Moreover, exhibits Plaintiff provides with his complaint suggest officers

had probable cause to arrest him.2 In search warrant affidavits, M.J. Russell

averred as follows:

During an interview with detectives, Cannimore

[Plaintiff’s girlfriend, mother of the victim] said she

observed [Plaintiff] punch [the victim] in the face and

head . . . knocking her unconscious. [Plaintiff]

admitted to striking [the victim] multiple times in the

head and face . . . knocking her unconscious. [Plaintiff

and Cannimore] then placed [the victim] on the couch

and left her there unconscious [for about eight hours]

when [Plaintiff] attempted to “wake her” in the

shower. [The victim] stopped breathing and

Cannimore called 9-1-1.

Id. at 18, 31 (emphasis added). See also Fla. Stat. § 827.03(1)(a) (“‘Aggravated

child abuse’ occurs when a person . . . [k]knowingly or willfully abuses a child

and in so doing causes great bodily harm . . . .”).

To the extent Plaintiff challenges his prosecution, he does not allege the

prosecution against him has terminated in his favor. See Compl. at 6-8. On the

contrary, according to the state-court criminal docket, Plaintiff is being held

on a finding of probable cause made on the day of his arrest, October 19, 2018,

2 In reviewing the facial sufficiency of a complaint, a court may consider

extrinsic evidence when a document “is central to the plaintiff’s claim” and

incorporated by reference in the complaint. See Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of

Fla., Inc., 116 F.3d 1364, 1368-69 (11th Cir. 1997).

5

and the charges against him remain pending. See CORE, available at

https://core.duvalclerk.com (last visited Sept. 26, 2023).3

Because Plaintiff does not allege officers lacked probable cause to arrest

him, and the charges against him remain pending, Plaintiff fails to state a

plausible claim for false arrest or for malicious prosecution. See Williams, 965

F.3d at 1157. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking this Court’s interference in his

pending criminal case, the Court will abstain from doing so. See Younger v.

Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43 (1971) (“Since the beginning of this country’s history

Congress has, subject to few exceptions, manifested a desire to permit state

courts to try state cases free from interference by federal courts.”).

Given Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim for relief, his complaint is

due to be dismissed without prejudice. If Plaintiff wants to challenge the legal

or factual basis of the charges or evidence against him, he should do so through

a proper motion or argument in the state court.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

3 A district court may take judicial notice of the contents of a publicly available

docket sheet. See McDowell Bey v. Vega, 588 F. App’x 923, 926 (11th Cir. 2014)

(holding the district court did not err in dismissing a complaint based in part on

review of the plaintiff’s state criminal docket, which showed officers had probable

cause to arrest him).

6

2. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this case without

prejudice, terminate any pending motions, and close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 27th day of

September 2023.

J) ‘ / =

fo Aagee | a OAL.

BRIAN. DAVIS

United States District Judge

Jax-6

C: Jonte D. Harris