United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
E. STEELE, Judge
matter comes before the Court upon the civil rights complaint
filed by Quinton Paul Handlon (“Plaintiff”), an
inmate at the Coleman Federal Correctional Complex in
Coleman, Florida pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (Doc. 1, filed May 18,
seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5).
Therefore, this Court must review his complaint to determine
whether it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). Upon review, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff does not state a cognizable federal
civil rights claim against any defendant. Therefore, his
complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
asserts, without elaboration, that he raises claims under the
Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the United States
Constitution (Doc. 1 at 3). Plaintiff also asserts that he
raises a claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963) (holding that the prosecution must turn over all
exculpatory evidence to the defense). He names as defendants
the United States of America, the State of Florida, Charlotte
County, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Charlotte County
Sheriff's Department, Deputy Sean Davoli, Detective Kevin
Connolly, Detective Joseph Sousa, Detective Christopher
Tissot, Michelle A. Thibeault, Brittney Thibeault, FBI-TFO
Jodie Page, FBI-TFO Jody A. Page, the United States Attorney
General's Office, U.S. Attorney Tama Caldarone, U.S.
Attorney Linda McNamara, Federal Public Defender James
Lappan, and Public Defender Martin DerOvanesian (Doc. 1 at
does not actually set forth the substance of his
constitutional civil rights claims in his
complaint. Rather, he directs the Court to numerous
attached documents and emails that he believes prove his
innocence of the crimes for which he was convicted: producing
child pornography, coercing and enticing a minor for the
production of child pornography, and possession of child
pornography. See criminal case number
Plaintiff has already challenged his criminal conviction by
filing a virtually identical pleading and these same
supporting documents in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which
is currently pending before this Court. See Case
Number 2:16-cv-813-FtM-29CM (“Habeas Petition”).
In his Habeas Petition, Plaintiff raises the following
In Ground One, Plaintiff asserts that an illegal search and
seizure occurred because law enforcement had photographs of
messages from two Facebook accounts, but pursued a Gmail
account where none of the photographs were found in the
nearly 300 emails collected. Plaintiff argues that no effort
was made to trace the IP address for the origin of the
emails. Plaintiff further argues that he tried to raise the
issue earlier but his trial and appellate attorneys refused
to do so.
In Ground Two, Plaintiff argues that there was a bad faith
destruction of relevant evidence because the real Gmail user
deleted the emails after finding out that law enforcement
would read them, and law enforcement failed to collect the IP
address to prove who really sent the emails, claiming they
only made printed copies of the emails and not the page
providing the sender's information. Plaintiff argues that
he tried to raise this earlier but his trial attorneys
refused to raise the issue.
In Ground Three, Plaintiff asserts that trial counsel and
appellate counsel were ineffective because they refused to
raise certain issues, or “check alibis, etc.”
Plaintiff asserts that his attorneys effectively aided the
government, and were parties to a conspiracy to commit fraud
upon the Court. Plaintiff asserts that he has vital
exculpatory evidence that was kept out of trial and withheld
from the jury.
In Ground Four, Plaintiff asserts a Brady violation,
arguing that there must have been additional emails with
attachments that were not turned over. Plaintiff argues that
there are at least two emails that were withheld by the
government that would have shown that he was innocent and not
the author of the other emails.
Petition at 4-9. Presumably, these are the same claims raised
in the instant civil rights complaint.
compensation for his allegedly unconstitutional arrest and
conviction, Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $7,
826.09 per minute per defendant, starting from May 8, 2013 at
7:30 a.m. (Doc. 1 at 7).
federal district court is required to review a civil
complaint filed in forma pauperis and dismiss any
such complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. The mandatory language of 28 U.S.C. § 1915
applies to all proceedings in forma pauperis.
Section 1915 provides:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that
may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any
time if the court determines that-(A) the allegation of
poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal-(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune