# Claudio v. DeLoach

> District Court, M.D. Florida · September 12, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10642961

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** September 12, 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/10642961

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal” (original alteration omitted)
- finding district court did not err in taking judicial notice of the plaintiff’s state court docket when dismissing § 1983 action

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

RAYMOND CLAUDIO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:24-cv-589-MMH-PDB

H.D. GATOR DELOACH, et al.,

Defendants.
_________________________________

ORDER
Plaintiff Raymond Claudio, an inmate of the Florida Department of
Corrections (FDC), initiated this action on June 5, 2024, by filing a pro se
Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Doc. 1) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the
Complaint, Claudio names as Defendants: (1) Sheriff H.D. Gator DeLoach; (2)
Deputy Sheriff Breckenridge; (3) mailroom clerk John or Jane Doe; (4) FDC
Secretary Dixon; (5) Warden John Doe; and (6) P. Thompkins. Complaint at
2–3. Some of the Defendants are associated with Putnam County (i.e., Sherriff
DeLoach, Deputy Breckenridge, and mailroom clerk Doe); the remaining
Defendants are associated with the FDC (i.e., Secretary Dixon, Thompkins,
Warden Doe). Id. Claudio’s allegations in the Complaint are far from clear.
However, from what the Court can discern, he alleges Defendants violated the
First Amendment based on three separate incidents. See generally id.
First, Claudio asserts that in his appeal of an order denying habeas
corpus relief, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals mailed “legal

correspondence [] in regards to an in forma pauperis [that] needed to be filed
so that a Notice of Appeal could be processed in that court.” Id. at 8. According
to Claudio, the FDC received the correspondence on March 26, 2024, and
forwarded it to the Putnam County Jail, where Claudio was housed at that

time for a state court hearing. Id. at 7. Claudio alleges Deputy Breckenridge
and mailroom clerk Doe failed to deliver the mail until April 5, 2024, even
though Putnam County Jail received the correspondence on March 28, 2024.
Id. at 8. Claudio does not assert that the delay impacted his appeal. See id. at

7–8.
Claudio’s allegations as to the second incident stem from his ongoing
postconviction proceedings in four state court cases.1 Claudio asserts that he
filed motions for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal

Procedure 3.850 in those cases, id. at 4, and the state court issued a “show
cause order,”2 id. at 5. According to Claudio, he “was able to obtain some

1 See State v. Claudio, Nos. 2022-CF-1166, 2022-CF-1179, 2022-CF-1229, 2022-
CF-1236 (Fla. 7th Cir. Ct.).
2 Given the context in which Claudio uses this term throughout the Complaint,
it appears he refers to an order directing the State Attorney to file a response to his
Rule 3.850 motions. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(6).
2
evidentiary material to support constitutional issues and attempted to amend
his 3.850 motion on [sic] case number CF221166,” but the state court struck it

as unauthorized. Id. at 6; see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(e) (providing a motion
may be amended at any time prior to the entry of an order directing the state
to respond). Claudio blames his inability to file an amended Rule 3.850 motion
on an alleged Putnam County Jail policy that “all mail regardless if it is legal

or not is returned to sender at the time of delivery [if] the prisoner is not there.”
Id. at 5. He contends that he did not receive the order to respond because the
state court sent it to the Putnam County Jail after he was transported to FDC
custody. Id. Claudio alleges mail clerk Doe, in “bad faith,” returned the mail to

the state court as unable to forward. Id.
Finally, Claudio asserts that on October 17, 2023, the Putnam County
Clerk of Court forwarded a “legal letter” regarding Claudio’s state court cases
to the FDC. Id. at 8. He maintains Thompkins rejected the letter because it

appeared to contain “certain unknown or unidentifiable substances.” Id. This
occurred again on December 13, 2023. Id. at 9. According to Claudio, “[t]he
detection of an unknown substance by the mailroom scanner is not an isolated
incident and happens all the time.” Id. He contends “Defendant Warden Doe

was aware of the deficiencies in the mailroom scanner,” and Secretary Dixon
3
implemented a policy that allowed Warden Doe to use a deficient mailroom
scanner. Id.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires the Court to dismiss
this case at any time if the Court determines that the action is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.3 See 28

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A. “A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable
merit either in law or fact.” Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001)
(citing Battle v. Cent. State Hosp., 898 F.2d 126, 129 (11th Cir. 1990)). A
complaint filed in forma pauperis which fails to state a claim under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is not automatically frivolous. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) dismissals should
only be ordered when the legal theories are “indisputably meritless,” id. at 327,
or when the claims rely on factual allegations which are “clearly baseless.”

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). “Frivolous claims include claims
‘describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district
judges are all too familiar.’” Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S.
at 328). Additionally, a claim may be dismissed as frivolous when it appears

3 Claudio requests to proceed as a pauper. See Motion (Doc. 2).
4
that a plaintiff has little or no chance of success. Id. As 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,
and therefore courts apply the same standard in both contexts.4 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 state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1)
the defendant deprived him of a right secured under the United States
Constitution or federal law, and (2) such deprivation occurred under color of
state law. Salvato v. Miley, 790 F.3d 1286, 1295 (11th Cir. 2015); Bingham v.

Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam); Richardson v.
Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 737 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Moreover, under
Eleventh Circuit precedent, to prevail in a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must show
“an affirmative causal connection between the official’s acts or omissions and

the alleged constitutional deprivation.” Zatler v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397,
401 (11th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted); Porter v. White, 483 F.3d 1294, 1306
n.10 (11th Cir. 2007).

4 “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)).
5
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint need only
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. (8)(a)(2). In addition, all reasonable inferences
should be drawn in favor of the plaintiff. See Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701,
705 (11th Cir. 2010). Nonetheless, the plaintiff still must meet some minimal
pleading requirements. Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d 1250,

1262–63 (11th Cir. 2004). Indeed, while “[s]pecific facts are not necessary[,]”
the complaint should “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is
and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93
(2007) (per curiam) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

(2007)). Further, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While not required to
include detailed factual allegations, a complaint must allege “more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id.
A “plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
6
elements of a cause of action will not do[.]” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal
quotations omitted); see also Jackson, 372 F.3d at 1262 (explaining that

“conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions
masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal” (original alteration
omitted)). Indeed, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the
allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal

conclusions[,]”which simply “are not entitled to [an] assumption of truth.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 680. In the absence of well-pled facts suggesting a
federal constitutional deprivation or violation of a federal right, a plaintiff
cannot sustain a cause of action against the defendant.

In assessing the Complaint, the Court must read Claudio’s pro se
allegations in a liberal fashion. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). And,
while “[p]ro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings
drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed,” Tannenbaum

v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998), “‘this leniency does not
give the court a license to serve as de facto counsel for a party or to rewrite an
otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.’” Campbell v. Air
Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168–69 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting GJR Invs., Inc.

7
v. Cnty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted),
overruled in part on other grounds as recognized in Randall, 610 F.3d at 709).

Claudio’s Complaint is due to be dismissed pursuant to the Court’s
screening obligation. First, the factual allegations in the Complaint are
rambling and oftentimes difficult to understand. Claudio presents no distinct
claims for relief, but for a single citation to the First Amendment. While pro se

pleadings must be liberally read, the Court will not comb through Claudio’s
narrative to construct a viable complaint for him. Insofar as the Court can
discern any claims for relief in the Complaint, they are improperly joined.
Claudio’s claims do not arise from the same basic issue or incident, and they

do not involve the same Defendants. As such, they belong in separate lawsuits.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)–(B).
Even so, Claudio does not state a plausible claim upon which relief can
be granted. Liberally construing his allegations, Claudio asserts Deputy

Breckenridge and mailroom clerk Doe frustrated his access to courts when they
delayed the delivery of legal mail regarding his federal appeal; the Putnam
County Jail’s mail policy of not forwarding mail frustrated his access to courts
in his postconviction proceedings; and the FDC Defendants violated his right

8
to free speech because of a deficient mailroom scanner. The Court first
addresses Claudio’s access to courts claims.

It is well-established that inmates have a constitutional right of access
to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977), abrogated on other
grounds by, Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). To state a claim for denial of
access to the courts, a plaintiff must allege an actual injury. Lewis, 518 U.S. at

349–50; Barbour v. Haley, 471 F.3d 1222, 1225 (11th Cir. 2006). “Actual injury
may be established by demonstrating that an inmate’s efforts to pursue a
nonfrivolous claim were frustrated or impeded by . . . an official’s action.”
Barbour, 471 F.3d at 1225 (citations omitted). Therefore, “the plaintiff must

identify within his complaint, a ‘nonfrivolous,’ ‘arguable’ underlying claim.’” Id.
at 1226 (quoting Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002)). “The
allegations about the underlying cause of action must be specific enough to give
fair notice to the defendants and must be described well enough to apply the

nonfrivolous test and to show that the arguable nature of the underlying claim
is more than hope.” Cunningham v. Dist. Att’y’s Off. for Escambia Cnty., 592
F.3d 1237, 1271 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Additionally, a plaintiff must show that the underlying nonfrivolous claim was

raised, or would have been raised, in connection with a direct appeal, a
9
collateral attack on his conviction, or a civil rights action. Lewis, 518 U.S. at
355.

Here, Claudio fails to assert that Defendants’ conduct resulted in an
“actual injury,” as defined by the Eleventh Circuit. As to his federal appeal,
Claudio alleges Defendants delayed the delivery of a notice “that his filing was
deficient for failing to file an IFP and a transcript order form on appeal.”

Complaint at 8. However, Claudio does not allege that the delay prevented him
from rectifying those deficiencies or resulted in the dismissal of his appeal. And
Claudio wholly fails to describe the specific claims that he intended to pursue
in the appeal, so the Court is unable to apply the “nonfrivolous test.” As such,

Claudio has not provided sufficient facts to suggest that the Defendants’
conduct frustrated or impeded his ability to pursue nonfrivolous claims in
connection with his federal appeal.
Although Claudio provides slightly more detail about his state court

proceedings, he also fails to plausibly allege an actual injury. In the Complaint,
Claudio states that Defendants’ interference with his legal mail prevented him
from amending his Rule 3.850 motion in case number 2022-CF-1166. See
Complaint at 5–7. However, he neither details the underlying claims in his

Rule 3.850 proceedings, nor describes the proposed amendment that the state
10
court struck. As such, Claudio fails to identify a nonfrivolous, arguable
underlying claim. Moreover, a review of the state court dockets reflect that the

alleged delays have not impeded his ability to litigate.5 Claudio has submitted
numerous filings in his Rule 3.850 proceedings. See State v. Claudio, Nos.
2022-CF-1166, 2022-CF-1179, 2022-CF-1229, 2022-CF-1236 (Fla. 7th Cir. Ct.).
And the state court has scheduled an evidentiary hearing in all four of his

cases.6 See Claudio, 2022-CF-1166, Doc. 169. Based on the above, Claudio fails
to state a violation of his right to access to courts claim.
As to Claudio’s free speech claim, interference with an inmate’s incoming
or outgoing mail may implicate an inmate’s right to freedom of speech. See Al-

Amin v. Smith, 511 F.3d 1317, 1333 (11th Cir. 2008). “Mail is one medium of
free speech, and the right to send and receive mail exists under the First
Amendment.” Id. (citation omitted). “While a prisoner has a right to be present

5 The Court takes judicial notice of Claudio’s state court dockets. See McDowell
Bey v. Vega, 588 F. App’x 923, 927 (11th Cir. 2014) (finding district court did not err
in taking judicial notice of the plaintiff’s state court docket when dismissing § 1983
action). For ease of reference, where a document appears in all four cases, the Court
will refer only to the document number as assigned in State v. Claudio, No. 2022-CF-
1166.
6 Notably, in Claudio’s pending state court cases, the circuit judge responded
to a petition for writ of mandamus by noting “[t]he Defendant abuses the process by
filing multiple amended 3.850’s [sic] which creates chaos in all of his cases.” Claudio,
No. 2022-CF-1166, Doc. 166. The court also noted that the stricken Rule 3.850 motion
had “basically the same grounds as the July Amended Motion but with more
attachments.” Id.

11
when his legal mail is opened, an isolated incident of mail tampering is usually
insufficient to establish a constitutional violation. Instead, the inmate must

show that prison officials regularly and unjustifiably interfered with the
incoming legal mail.” Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal
quotations and citations omitted). Here, Claudio does not provide more than
conclusory statements that would tend to suggest there was a regular and

unjustified interference with his legal mail. With regards to the mailroom
scanner, he merely alleges the scanner alerted to contraband on two occasions,
resulting in Thompkins returning Claudio’s legal mail to the state court. He
does not assert that Thompkins, or any prison official, opened his legal mail

outside of his presence or read his mail. Nor does he assert that the officers
intentionally or wrongfully deprived him of his mail. Claudio’s alleged facts do
not suggest a regular and unjustified interference with incoming legal mail. As
such, Claudio has failed to state a claim for relief.

Lastly, it appears that Claudio’s Complaint is a thinly veiled attempt to
circumvent the Court’s prior orders and to obtain a favorable ruling in his state
court cases. Since initiating his postconviction proceedings in state court,
Claudio has filed seven federal habeas corpus cases. See Case Nos. 3:23-cv-

1389-TJC-LLL; 3:23-cv-1400-HES-LLL; 3:23-cv-1460-BJD-MCR; 3:23-cv-
12
1461-HLA-JBT; 3:24-cv-281-TJC-SJH; 3:24-cv-622-BJD-PDB; 3:-24-cv-686-
WWB-LLL. The assigned judges dismissed five of those cases as premature.

See Case Nos. 3:23-cv-1389-TJC-LLL; 3:23-cv-1400-HES-LLL; 3:23-cv-1460-
BJD-MCR; 3:23-cv-1461-HLA-JBT; 3:24-cv-281-TJC-SJH. Claudio now brings
the same complaints before the Court under the guise of the First
Amendment.7 However, the Court will not interfere in his state court

proceedings. If Claudio disagrees with the state court’s rulings, he may move
for rehearing in state court or request relief in the state appellate court.

7 Indeed, in one of his federal habeas corpus cases, Claudio alleged “the state
court failed to send him copies of pertinent orders (of recusal and to show cause),
which prevented him from timely challenging those orders; . . . improperly struck his
second amended motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.850 on October 11, 2023; . . . and denied him the ‘right to amend his
[Rule] 3.850 [motion].’” See Case No. 3:23-cv-1460-BJD-MCR, Doc. 4 at 2.
13
Therefore, it is now ORDERED:
1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing this case
without prejudice, terminate any pending motions, and close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 12th day of
September, 2024.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge

Jax-9 9/5
C: Raymond Claudio, #928932

14

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10642961. Public record. Not legal advice.