TERRELL
v.
WENDY
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.
A plaintiff cannot sue private citizens under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they do not act under color of state law. Federal courts must also abstain from interfering in pending state criminal proceedings.
Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, sued three private citizens under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging they lied to police and child protective services regardi…
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 Younger V. Harris cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff Allen Terrell Davis's Complaint (Doc. 1). Davis, a pretrial detainee in Lee County Jail, sues three private citizens under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Davis accuses the defendants of lying to the police and the Florida Department of Children and Families in relation to the criminal charges pending against him. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff “must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him of a federal right." McIndoo v. Broward Cnty., 750 F. App'x 816, 819 (11th Cir. 2018). Because the defendants are private citizens, they do not operate under color of state law, so Davis cannot sue them under § 1983.
Also, this is not a proper venue to challenge the evidence in a pending state criminal case. Federal courts are not intended as a “pre-trial motion
forum for state prisoners.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 493 (1973). Further, principles of equity, comity, and federalism require the Court to abstain from interfering in state criminal proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). Davis provides no reason for this Court to overlook the abstention principle. Nor does he allege any facts that warrant application of any exception to the Younger doctrine.
Granting Davis leave to amend would be futile here. Davis cannot sue the defendant under § 1983, and no amendment will make this the proper venue for Davis's allegations. Accordingly, Plaintiff Allen Terrell Davis's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, enter judgment, and close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on June 18, 2025.
Sheris Paster Rappell SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record
2