JOHNNIE L. WILLIAMS
v.
STEPHANIE V. DANIELS, DIRECTOR, MIAMI DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES; FRANCIANNE DORVILUS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND OFFICER D. FORBES, BADGE # 0055, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted in part and deferred the motions to dismiss, granting dismissal for the Department of Financial Services based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and transferring the case to the Southern District of Florida.
[1] The Eleventh Amendment protects states from being sued in federal court without their consent or congressional abrogation.
[2] A state agency is immune from suit in federal court for monetary damages when the state has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity and Congress has not abrogated such…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution protects states from being sued in federal court without the state's consent.”
Establishes the foundational principle of Eleventh Amendment immunity that applies to state defendants in federal court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Johnnie L. Williams sued multiple defendants, including the Department of Financial Services (DFS), Francianne Dorvilus, and Officer D. Forb…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 1391(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter comes before the Court on review of three motions to dismiss and response: • Defendant Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. #8). • Defendant Francianne Dorvilus (“Dorvilus”) filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. #9). • Defendant Donald Forbes (“Forbes”) filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. #10).
Pro Se Plaintiff Johnnie L. Williams (“Williams”) filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #12) to all three motions. For the reasons set forth below, all motions are granted in part and otherwise deferred.
The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution protects states from being sued in federal court without the state's consent. Manders v. Lee, 338 F. 3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2003). Absent a state's consent, it may only be sued where Congress has clearly and unequivocally abrogated the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. See DeKalb Cnty. Sch. Dist. V. Schrenko, 109 F. 3d 680, 688 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 (1984)). In this case, Plaintiff is only seeking monetary damages where the State of Florida has not waived its immunity from suit, nor has Congress waived such immunity. (Doc. #1.) As such, Williams’s Complaint must be dismissed as to DFS pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. A plaintiff may bring a civil action in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Given that DFS has been dismissed from the instant case pursuant to Eleventh Amendment immunity, this Court is not the proper venue. The remaining three defendants all reside in Miami-Dade County and the events identified in Plaintiff's Complaint all occurred in Miami-Dade County. Further, while Stephanie V. Daniels (“Daniels”) has not yet appeared before this Court, Daniels will not be prejudiced by the transfer since Daniels is also located in the Southern District of Florida. As such, venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida and the case should be transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). [fn 1] For the reasons set forth in this order, all three motions will be granted in part and otherwise deferred. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: (1) Department of Financial Service’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, as to its Eleventh Amendment immunity, is GRANTED and it is dismissed without prejudice. [fn 1]: Given that this Court has transferred the case, it will not analyze Dorvilus’s or Forbes's argument that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim. Further, the Court notes that upon reading William's Response he only opposes having his case dismissed and not transferring venue. (Doc. #12.) (2) Francianne Dorvilus’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint as to venue is GRANTED to the extent the Complaint is transferred to the Southern District of Florida. The motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is deferred for consideration by the transferee court. (3) Donald Forbes's Motion to Dismiss Complaint as to venue is GRANTED to the extent the Complaint is transferred to the Southern District of Florida. The motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is deferred for consideration by the transferee court. (4) The Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the Miami Division of the Southern District of Florida for all further proceedings. The Clerk shall terminate all deadlines and close the Fort Myers files.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 15th day of January 2026.
Dehu E & treb JOHN E. STEELE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies: Parties of record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1984)
- Manders v. Thurman LEE, 338 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003)
- DeKALB Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Schrenko, 109 F.3d 680 (11th Cir. 1997)