Graham v. Bruce

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

KEVIN O. GRAHAM,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:24-cv-834-JLB-KCD

TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

(LEE COUNTY JUSTICE

CENTER) and LEE COUNTY

SHERIFF’S OFFICE,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

Plaintiff Kevin O. Graham, a prisoner of the Florida Department of

Corrections, initiated this action by filing a pro se civil rights complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. After screening Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1), the Court directed

him to amend it if he wished to proceed. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff’s amended complaint

is now before the Court for screening. (Doc. 9.)

After carefully considering Plaintiff’s allegations and the record from

Plaintiff’s state-court criminal proceedings, the Court dismisses his amended

complaint because it does not state a claim on which relief may be granted.

I. Background and Amended Complaint

To better understand the facts leading to the claims in Plaintiff’s amended

complaint, the Court takes judicial notice of and reviews the docket entries (D.E.) in

criminal case number 23-CF-000299, filed in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth

Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida.1 On April 15, 2023, the state court

issued an arrest warrant for Plaintiff on a charge of sexual battery on a child

between twelve and eighteen years old. (See D.E. 6 (Booking Report).) On April 5,

2024 (prior to trial), Plaintiff filed a motion to suppress all the evidence found on a

cell phone that was seized during an allegedly illegal search of his motel room.

After a hearing (D.E. 110, 111), the state court denied the motion to suppress

without a written opinion. (D.E. 112.) On September 6, 2024, a jury found

Plaintiff guilty of committing sexual battery on a child between the age of twelve

and eighteen while in familial or custodial authority; lewd and lascivious conduct;

lewd and lascivious molestation; and transmission of material harmful to a minor.

(D.E. 154, 173.) The court sentenced Plaintiff to natural life in prison. (D.E. 193.)

On March 12,2024, Plaintiff filed a section 1983 civil rights complaint in this

Court challenging certain events surrounding his arrest. (See MDFL Case No.

2:24-cv-230-JLB-NPM, Graham I). The undersigned dismissed the complaint (with

leave to amend) in a detailed screening order because Plaintiff had not stated a

claim on which relief could be granted. (Graham I at docket entry 7.) Plaintiff did

not amend his complaint, and the Court ultimately dismissed Graham I for failure

to prosecute. (Graham I, at docket entry 9.) Thereafter, Plaintiff initiated this

action. Again, Plaintiff did not state an actionable section 1983 claim, and in

another detailed screening order, the Court directed him to amend. (Doc. 5.)

Plaintiff’s amended complaint was docketed on October 21, 2024. (Doc. 9.)

1 See https://matrix.leeclerk.org (search: Graham, Kevin or case number 23-

CF-000299).

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Detective Sindi Torres and

Deputy Hardenfelder detained and arrested him without a warrant outside of his

motel room on April 13, 2023. (Doc. 9 at 5.) The officers searched Plaintiff’s room

and took his phone. (Id.) Deputy Hardenfelder handcuffed Plaintiff and took him

to the Lee County Sheriff’s office. (Id.) He returned Plaintiff (without his phone)

to the motel a few hours later. (Id.) The Lee County Sheriff’s Office then obtained

a warrant to search Plaintiff’s phone, but Plaintiff alleges that “there is no warrant

on [the] court docket for LCSO to search [Plaintiff’s] motel and seize the phone” in

the first place. (Id.) On or around April 25, 2023, Plaintiff was arrested pursuant

to an arrest warrant. (Id) Thereafter, he was deprived of his right to be present

at his arraignment. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a motion to suppress evidence—

presumably the information gleaned from the cell phone—but the motion was

denied without a written opinion. (Id.) The state’s child-hearsay motion was

granted without the victim present. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court in Lee County held

him “to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime without presentment or

indictment of a grand jury in contravention of Amendment V.” (Doc. 9 at 6 (minor

alterations for clarity).) Plaintiff alleges that the Lee County Sheriff unlawfully

detained him without a warrant and without probable cause and conducted an

unreasonable search and seizure of Plaintiff and his motel room. (Id.) Plaintiff

seeks monetary damages.

II. Legal Standards

A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

A prisoner who seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court will have his

complaint screened in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

This screening procedure requires the court to dismiss a prisoner's civil action prior

to service of process if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from

a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

Dismissals for failure to state a claim under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) are

governed by the same standard as those under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). And to

state a claim for relief, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that

a pleading contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although a complaint “does

not need detailed factual allegations,” it must provide “more than labels and

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see also Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint may not rest on “ ‘naked assertions[s]’

devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’ ” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,

550 U.S. at 557). Instead, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to

relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

B. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Plaintiff's claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “[S]ection 1983 provides a

method for vindicating federal rights conferred by the Constitution and federal

statutes.” Bannum, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 901 F.2d 989, 997 (11th Cir.

1990). To successfully plead a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege two

elements: “(1) that the act or omission deprived plaintiff of a right, privilege or

immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) that the

act or omission was done by a person acting under color of law.” Id.

III. Discussion2

To survive dismissal at the screening phase, “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) (internal quotation marks

omitted). The plausibility standard is met only where the alleged facts enable “the

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

2 In its first screening order, the Court found that Plaintiff’s conclusory

allegations suggested only the “sheer possibility” of unlawful conduct by the

defendants. (Graham I at D.E. 7.) The Court explained that: (1) Plaintiff could

not initiate criminal proceedings against a defendant in a civil action; (2) there is no

section 1983 cause of action for reckless endangerment; (3) there is no section 1983

cause of action for conversion; and (4) Plaintiff had not stated a claim for false

arrest. (Id.) In its second screening order, the Court again found that Plaintiff’s

sparse allegations suggested only the sheer possibility of unlawful activity. (Doc. 5

at 4.) The Court also explained that state prosecutors and judges are generally

immune from section 1983 liability and that Plaintiff had not stated a Fourth

Amendment claim against any defendant. (Id at 6.) After both screening orders,

Plaintiff was directed to file amended complaints. However, neither of the

complaints filed in this case have cured the deficiencies identified in the screening

orders. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff now raises claims similar to those already

considered and dismissed by the Court, they are again dismissed under section

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and are not further considered in this Order.

misconduct alleged.” Id. Plausibility means “more than a sheer possibility that a

defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. “Where a complaint pleads facts that are

merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between

possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id. (internal quotation marks

omitted). Here, Plaintiff’s disjointed and sparse factual allegations do not state a

plausible section 1983 claim, and the amended complaint is dismissed as

insufficiently pleaded and because it does not state a claim on which relief may be

granted.

In addition, Plaintiff lists the “Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Lee County Justice

Center” and the Lee County Sheriff’s Office as defendants in his amended

complaint. (Doc. 9 at 3.) To state a viable section 1983 action, the legal entity

sued must be subject to suit. Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992).

Appropriate parties for suit under section 1983 include “persons” who participated

in the alleged violation. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (subjecting only “persons” to

liability). Neither of the named defendants in Plaintiff’s amended complaint are

“persons.” See 1 U.S.C. § 1 (defining the word ‘person’ to include “corporations,

companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as

well as individuals,” but not justice centers, courts, or Sheriff’s Departments).

Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims, even if liberally construed, cannot be brought against

the named defendants and are dismissed for this reason as well.

Finally, the amended complaint would be subject to dismissal for failure to

state a claim even had Plaintiff named entities subject to suit under section 1983.

A. Plaintiff has not stated a claim against the Twentieth Judicial

Circuit Court or the Lee County Justice Center.

As noted, neither the Lee County Justice Center nor the Twentieth Judicial

Circuit Court is a “person” subject to suit. Courts routinely dismiss section 1983

claims filed against such entities. See, e.g., Kirkland v. Fugate, No. 8:17-cv-3072-

T-17TBM, 2018 WL 10087060, at * 2 (M.D. Fla. Jan.9, 2018) (“The Sixth Judicial

Circuit is not a ‘person’ who is subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”); Steelman v.

Palm Bay Police Dep’t, No. 6:23-cv-1919-ACC-LHP, 2023 WL 8352355, at *3 (M.D.

Fla. Oct. 10, 2023) (“[T]o the extent that Plaintiff sues the 18th Judicial Circuit, a

court is not a person subject to suit under Section 1983.”); Mumford v. Zieba, 4 F.3d

429, 435 (6th Cir.1993) (holding that “a state court is not a ‘person’ within the

meaning of that term as used in § 1983”); Johnson v. Supreme Court of Ill., 165 F.3d

1140, 1140–41 (7th Cir. 1999) (state supreme court was not a “person” subject to

suit).

Even had Plaintiff named individual “persons” at the Lee County Justice

Center as defendants, his claim against them would still be subject to dismissal for

two reasons. First, a section 1983 action “is a proper remedy for a state prisoner

who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not

to the fact or length of his custody.” Prieser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475, 499 (1973)

(emphases added); see also Hutcherson v. Riley, 468 F.3d 750, 754 (11th Cir. 2006)

(“Simply put, if the relief sought by the inmate would either invalidate his

conviction or sentence or change the nature or duration of his sentence, the inmate's

claim must be raised in a § 2254 habeas petition, not a § 1983 civil rights action.”).

Plaintiff alleges that the indictment leading to his conviction was invalid—clearly a

challenge to the “fact of” his custody. And that Plaintiff expressly seeks monetary

damages instead of release does not save his claim from dismissal. This is because

“when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must

consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the

invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487

(1994). If Plaintiff proved (through this section 1983 action) that his indictment

was invalid—or that an individual at the Lee County Justice Center

unconstitutionally caused his conviction in any other manner—the judgment would

necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. Thus, Plaintiff's

section 1983 claims against any individual associated with the Lee County Justice

Center must be dismissed unless he “can demonstrate that the conviction or

sentence has already been invalidated.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Plaintiff has

made no such showing.

In sum: (1) neither the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court or Lee County

Justice Center is a “person” subject to suit under section 1983; (2) a section 1983

claim that challenges the fact of Plaintiff’s confinement is appropriately raised in a

petition for writ of habeas corpus; and (3) any liberally-construed section 1983 claim

against an individual defendant associated with the Lee County Justice Center is

subject to dismissal as Heck-barred because Plaintiff’s conviction has not been

invalidated. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against the Twentieth Judicial Circuit

Court or Lee County Justice Center are dismissed for failure to state a claim on

which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

B. Plaintiff has not stated a claim against the Sheriff of Lee

County.

Plaintiff inconsistently labels his second defendant as the Lee County Sheriff

or the Lee County Sheriff’s Office. (Doc. 9 at 1, 3.) The capacity of a governmental

corporation to be sued in federal court is governed by the law of the state in which

the district court is located. Id. at 1214; Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). “Florida law has not

established Sheriff’s offices as separate legal entities with the capacity to be sued.”

Faulkner v. Monroe Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 523 F. App’x 696, 701 (11th Cir. 2013).

Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against the Lee County Sheriff’s Office are dismissed.

Even if Plaintiff intended to name the Sheriff of Lee County (instead of the

Sheriff’s Office) as the defendant in this action, he has not stated a claim against

him. Plaintiff does not allege that the Sheriff personally participated in the alleged

constitutional deprivations. Nor does he allege that a policy, custom or practice

was the “moving force” behind the misconduct so as to render the Sheriff liable in

his official capacity. Finally, the Sheriff’s supervisory position, without an

affirmative causal connection to the violation, does not subject him to liability. See

Zatler v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 401 (11th Cir. 1986) (requiring an affirmative

causal connection between a defendant and an alleged constitutional violation).

Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against the Lee County Sheriff are dismissed for failure to

state a claim on which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

IV. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed because it does not state a claim

on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Generally, a district

court allows a pro se plaintiff to amend his complaint “unless the plaintiff expresses

a desire not to amend or an amendment would be futile.” Watkins v. Hudson, 560

F. App’x 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2014). Between this case and Graham I, Plaintiff had

two chances to amend his complaint and ignored the Court’s instructions on how to

correct the numerous deficiencies in his pleadings. Therefore, the Court is not

required to give Plaintiff leave to file a fourth complaint. See Cornelius v. Bank of

America, NA, 585 F. App’x 996, 1000 (11th Cir. 2014) (“Because Cornelius already

had been given an opportunity to correct his pleadings, the judge was not required

to give him another chance.”). And given that Plaintiff did not attempt to follow

the Court’s earlier directives in either of the cases filed in this Court, “[t]here is no

indication that, given a [fourth] bite at the apple, [Plaintiff] would correct the

numerous deficiencies in his complaint.” Id. Therefore, the Court also finds that

amendment would be futile.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. 9) is DISMISSED for failure to

state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

2. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions, enter

judgment in favor of the defendants, and close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on November 20,2024.

ped bbe

ee

Copies: Kevin O. Graham