ROBERTS

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Plaintiff, James Elton Roberts, 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 moves to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 2. Plaintiff sues one Defendant – the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) – and seeks only monetary damages. Doc. 1 at 2. Roberts alleges that while housed at various institutions between January 7, 2020 and today, he has endured conduct that violates his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 3-5. Though not a picture of clarity, he complains his property has been destroyed or thrown away; he has been poisoned, assaulted, starved, gassed, and illegally held in close management; he has received false disciplinary reports; and unnamed institutional staff members have retaliated against him for filing grievances, hindered his access to the courts, thrown away his grievances, destroyed his legal work and mail, and ignored or tried to cover up his suicide attempts. Id.

at 5. 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. 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 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.¹ 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). 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

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 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. The Court must read Roberts’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. v. Cnty. of Escambia, Fla., 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). Liberally read, Roberts’s Complaint fails to state a plausible § 1983 claim against the FDOC. State and governmental entities that are 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.”)² (citing Edwards v. Wallace Cmty. Coll., 49 F. 3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir. 1995)). As such, Roberts has failed to state a claim against the FDOC, and this case is due to be dismissed without prejudice to Roberts’s 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.

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 14th day of September, 2023.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD

United States District Judge

Jax-7 C: James Elton Roberts, #132873