NORFLEET

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Plaintiff, an inmate of the Florida penal system housed at Florida State Prison, initiated this action by filing a civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. He also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 2. He sues one Defendant – the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC). Doc. 1 at 2. The entirety of Plaintiff’s claim is that he has “been falsely imprisoned.” Id. at 5. The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the Court to dismiss a 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Court liberally construes the pro se 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 as “de facto counsel” for the plaintiff. Freeman v. Sec’y, Dept. of Corr., 679 F. App’x. 982, 982 (11th Cir. 2017)1 (citing GJR Inv.,

Inc. v. Cnty. Of Escambia, 132 F. 3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998)). As for whether a complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) mirrors the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 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 do. Id. (quotations, alteration, and citation omitted). Moreover, 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

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. See Salvato v. Miley, 790 F. 3d 1286, 1295 (11th Cir. 2015). Moreover,

“conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts, or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.” Rehberger v. Henry Cty., Ga., 577 F. App’x 937, 938 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quotations and citation omitted). In the absence of a federal constitutional deprivation or violation of a federal right, a plaintiff cannot sustain a cause of action against a defendant. Liberally read, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a plausible § 1983 claim against the FDOC. State and governmental entities considered “arms of the state” are not “persons” subject to liability for purposes of a § 1983 action. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70 (1989). The FDOC is an arm of the executive branch of the state government, see Fla. Stat. § 20.315, and thus is not a person for purposes of § 1983. See Gardner v. Riska, 444 F. App’x 353, 355 (11th Cir. 2011) (“As the [F]DOC is a state agency, and thus not a person within the meaning of § 1983, Gardner’s § 1983 claim for damages against the [F]DOC is frivolous.”) (citing Edwards v. Wallace Cmty. Coll., 49 F. 3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir. 1995)). As such, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the FDOC, and this case is due to be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiffs right to refile his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with sufficient factual allegations to support a claim against a proper defendant if he elects to do so. 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 10th day of October, 2023.

Zh. NO - TO ruse | nj LXer

United States District Judge

Jax-7 C: Tino A. Norfleet, #R45003