# Harris v. Russell

> District Court, M.D. Florida · September 27, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10114103

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** September 27, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10114103

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10114103. Public record. Not legal advice.