# Pringle v. Duncan

> District Court, M.D. Florida · April 9, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10115740

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** April 9, 2024
- **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/10115740

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that district court did not err in taking judicial notice of the plaintiff’s state court docket when dismissing § 1983 action
- recognizing that a § 1983 claim is subject to Florida’s four-year personal injury statute of limitations

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

JAMES I. PRINGLE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:24-cv-257-TJC-JBT

OFFICER T. DUNCAN,

Defendant.
_______________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff, an inmate of the Florida penal system, initiated this case by
filing a Civil Rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. He also moves
to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 2. Plaintiff names one Defendant – Officer T.
Duncan. Doc. 1. He claims that on July 5, 2005, Defendant arrested Plaintiff for
trafficking in cocaine. Id. at 5. Plaintiff contends the trial court soon released
him on bond pending his state court (Columbia County, Florida) prosecution.
Id. According to Plaintiff, however, on February 14, 2006, Defendant initiated
a traffic stop of Plaintiff’s girlfriend’s car while Plaintiff was in the passenger
seat of the vehicle. Id. at 5. He asserts that after he gave Defendant his driver’s
license, Defendant drew his firearm and arrested Plaintiff without probable
cause or an arrest warrant. Id. at 6. Plaintiff contends Defendant’s February
2006 arrest and resulting prosecution violated his rights under the Fourth,
Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 3. As relief, he seeks
monetary damages. Id. at 8.
A review of Plaintiff’s state court docket shows that following his
February 2006 arrest, Plaintiff entered a plea of guilty to trafficking in cocaine,

possession of cannabis with intent to sell, driving while license suspended or
revoked (second offense), and resisting officer without violence. See State v.
Pringle, No. 2005-CF-000130 (Fla. 3d Cir. Ct.).1 In July 2006, the trial court
sentenced Plaintiff to a one-year term of incarceration to be followed by an

eleven-year term of probation. Id. It appears that after serving the incarcerative
portion of his sentence, Plaintiff violated his probation several times; and in
March 2022, the trial court revoked his probation and sentenced him to a ten-
year term of incarceration. Id. Plaintiff is now serving that sentence, with an

estimated release date of June 22, 2026. Id.; see also Fla. Dept. of Corr., Corr.
Offender Network website, www.dc.stat.fl.us/offenderSearch (last visited on
Apr. 3, 2024).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires a district court to

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

1 The Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s state court docket. See McDowell
Bey v. Vega, 588 F. App’x 923, 927 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that district court did not
err in taking judicial notice of the plaintiff’s state court docket when dismissing § 1983
action); see also Mangiafico v. Blumenthal, 471 F.3d 391, 398 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[D]ocket
sheets are public records of which the court could take judicial notice.”).
2
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
As for 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 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. (quotations, alteration, and citation omitted). 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)
(quotations and citations omitted).

In reviewing a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings, a court must liberally construe
the plaintiff’s allegations. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972);
Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir. 2011). But the duty of a
court to construe pro se pleadings liberally does not require the court to serve

3
as an attorney for the plaintiff. Freeman v. Sec’y, Dept. of Corr., 679 F. App’x
982, 982 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d
1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998)).2
Plaintiff contends his claim is based on the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and

Fourteenth Amendments. But given Plaintiff primarily challenges his arrest,
the Fourth Amendment’s protections are implicated. The Fourth Amendment
provides, in relevant part, that people have the right “to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and

seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. “A warrantless arrest without probable cause
violates the Fourth Amendment and forms a basis for a [§] 1983 claim.” Ortega
v. Christian, 85 F.3d 1521, 1525 (11th Cir. 1996). But “the existence of probable
cause at the time of arrest is an absolute bar to a § 1983 claim challenging the

constitutionality of the arrest.” Watkins v. Johnson, 853 F. App’x 455, 460 (11th
Cir. 2021) (quoting Brown v. City of Huntsville, Ala., 608 F.3d 724, 734 (11th
Cir. 2010)); see also Hesed-El v. McCord, 829 F. App’x 469, 472 (11th Cir. 2020)

2 The Court does not rely on unpublished opinions as binding precedent;
however, they may be cited in this Order when the Court finds them persuasive on a
particular point. See McNamara v. GEICO, 30 F.4th 1055, 1060–61 (11th Cir. 2022);
see generally Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 11th Cir. R. 36–2 (“Unpublished opinions are not
considered binding precedent, but they may be cited as persuasive authority.”).
4
(“[A] federal . . . claim for false arrest requires the plaintiff to show the absence
of probable cause at the time of the arrest.”).
Here, Plaintiff fails to allege a plausible false arrest claim because he does
not allege facts permitting a reasonable inference that Defendant lacked

probable cause to arrest him on February 14, 2006. Instead, Plaintiff merely
uses conclusory buzzwords, saying Defendant “arrested Plaintiff without
probable cause and without a warrant[,] depriving Plaintiff of liberty and life .
. . .” Doc. 1 at 6. Such conclusory, vague allegations are insufficient to state a

claim under § 1983. See L.S.T. v. Crow, 49 F.3d 679, 684 (11th Cir. 1995); see
also Hesed-El v. McCord, 829 F. App’x 469, 472 (11th Cir. 2020) (affirming
dismissal of a false arrest claim because the plaintiff’s “conclusory assertion
that [the officer] acted without probable cause [was] devoid of any facts giving

rise to a ‘plausible suggestion’ of . . . false arrest”); Wright v. Dodd, 438 F. App’x
805, 806 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming sua sponte dismissal of the plaintiff’s § 1983
complaint because the plaintiff alleged only “in conclusory fashion that the
police arrested [him] without a warrant,” and he did not “allege any facts

showing that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him”).
Even more, however, Plaintiff attaches to his Complaint the February 14,
2006, arrest and booking report, in which Defendant explained that during the
traffic stop, Plaintiff was in possession of a suspended driver’s license, in

5
violation of section 322.32, Florida Statutes. Doc. 1-1 at 3; see also § 322.32, Fla.
Stat. Under Florida law, “[a] law enforcement officer may arrest a person
without a warrant when,” among other things, “[t]he person has committed a
felony or misdemeanor . . . in the presence of the officer.” § 901.15(1), Fla. Stat.

Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant’s written statements in the arrest
report are inaccurate. And he otherwise fails to allege how his possession of a
suspended driver’s license, which is a misdemeanor, did not provide Defendant
with the necessary probable cause to arrest him despite the alleged absence of

an arrest warrant. Thus, Plaintiff fails to state a Fourth Amendment claim
against Defendant.
In any event, it appears from the face of the Complaint that Plaintiff’s
claim challenging his 2006 arrest is barred by Florida’s four-year statute of

limitations. “Claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are subject to the
statute of limitations period governing personal injury actions in the state
where the action is brought.” Wellons v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 754 F.3d
1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted); see Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S.

235, 249-50 (1989) (“We accordingly hold that where state law provides multiple
statutes of limitations for personal injury actions, courts considering § 1983
claims should borrow the general or residual statute for personal injury
actions.”). In Florida, “[t]he applicable statute of limitations in a § 1983 lawsuit

6
is the four-year Florida state statute of limitations for personal injuries.” Omar
v. Lindsey, 334 F.3d 1246, 1251 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (citations
omitted); Van Poyck v. McCollum, 646 F.3d 865, 867 (11th Cir. 2011)
(recognizing that a § 1983 claim is subject to Florida’s four-year personal injury
statute of limitations); City of Hialeah, Fla. v. Rojas, 311 F.3d 1096, 1108 n.2
(11th Cir. 2002) (“Section 1983 claims are governed by the forum state’s
residual personal injury statute of limitations, which in Florida is four years.”
(citations omitted)). According to Plaintiff, the arrest he challenges occurred in
February 2006. He filed this case over eighteen years later. Thus, his § 1983
claims are untimely, and this case is due to be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
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 9th day of
April, 2024.

Cirmotheg g. Corrig on
TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN
United States District Judge

Jax-7
C: James I. Pringle, #I03596

8

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10115740. Public record. Not legal advice.