United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHARLES A. STAMPELOS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
proceeding pro se, initiated this case on February
27, 2018, by submitting a civil rights complaint to the
Clerk's Office, ECF No. 1, and a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. Plaintiff was required
to file an amended motion and clarify the basis for her
residency at the Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee,
Florida. ECF No. 3.
then filed an amended motion, ECF No. 4, which states that
Plaintiff was deemed “not competent to proceed in a
criminal case” and was subjected to involuntary
hospitalization. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was granted in forma
pauperis status, ECF No. 5, and was not required to pay an
initial partial filing fee. Plaintiff was, however, required
to file an amended civil rights complaint. ECF No. 5.
Plaintiff did so on April 5, 2018. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff also
filed another document which she titled as “motion to
show cause.” ECF No. 7.
amended civil rights complaint has been reviewed along with
her motion. Plaintiff contends that Joel Boles, who is not a
Defendant, has obstructed justice and made false allegations
concerning Plaintiff's mental health. ECF No. 7 at 1. She
contends that she “has been illegally confined at the
Florida State Hospital since September 24, 2017, ” she
states that she “would like to be released or the
Florida State Hospital [should] be held liable for holding
the Plaintiff without just cause!” Id. She
goes on to allege that she was physically assaulted by six
security guards on March 6, 2018. Id. at 3. She says
that she was also assaulted on October 24, 2017, and on
January 29, 2018. Id. at 2. She indicates that she
has reported the assaults and an investigation is underway.
Id. She requests that “[w]hile the court is
trying to decipher fact from fantasy, ” she would
“like to be released from Florida State
Hospital!” Id. at 3.
complaint names only the Florida State Hospital as Defendant
on the first page of the complaint form. ECF No. 6 at 1.
Plaintiff contends that she “was not mentally
ill” and is being held in “illegal
confinement.” Id. at 2. She asserts that the
Hospital has acted “without just cause” and
contends that the state court is guilty of obstruction of
justice. Id. Further, Plaintiff names three other
persons as Defendants in page three of the complaint,
contending that as “staff employees” they are
Defendants' agents.” Id. at 3. However,
the complaint cannot proceed against any of those persons
because Plaintiff does not provide any factual allegations
which provide a basis for a claim against those individuals.
Plaintiff asserts in the complaint that she “is not
mentally ill” and is held in “illegal
confinement.” Id. at 4. She further contends
that her arrest on April 10, 2015, which led to her
confinement is incorrect and the crime for which she is
facing charges “did not happen, period.”
Id. She contends that she has been subjected to a
“false arrest . . . without a warrant to show just
cause.” Id. at 5. She alleges that she was
“illegally removed from her place of residence without
her permission.” She also states that she “has
been made a hostage.” Id. She seeks to hold
the Hospital “liable for the actions of its agent
employees” and states that she is a “nervous
wreck” because she is “forced to live with people
who are mentally ill.” Id.
asserts claims for illegal confinement based on false
charges, “illegal profiteering of another human being
for profit, ” endangerment, and illegal arrest.
Id. at 7. As relief, Plaintiff seeks to be
compensated for her pain and suffering and advises she
“would be happy to receive the monetary sum of 2
billion” dollars in damages. Id.
civil rights action, Plaintiff provides no factual
allegations to support finding that her Constitutional rights
have been violated. Plaintiff's amended complaint is
insufficient to state a claim.
importantly, there are two broad categories of prisoner
cases: (1) those challenging the fact or duration of
confinement and (2) those challenging the conditions of
confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93
S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). Habeas corpus is the
exclusive remedy to challenge the fact or duration of
one's confinement and seek immediate or speedier release.
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481, 114 S.Ct. 2364,
2369 (1994). “[T]he demarcation line between civil
rights actions and habeas petitions is not always
clear.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 579,
94 S.Ct. 2963, 2986, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Both avenues are
open to redress the same constitutional claims.
Wolff, 418 U.S. at 579, 94 S.Ct. at 2986. However,
“only in habeas actions may relief be granted which
will shorten the term of confinement, ” Id.
(citing Preiser, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827);
see also Heck, 512 U.S. at 481, 114 S.Ct. at 2369.
In this case it is clear that Plaintiff is seeking release
from what she claims is an illegal confinement. That may only
be obtained through a habeas petition and this case cannot
provide Plaintiff relief.
to the degree Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for her
confinement, the law is clear that one may not obtain
monetary damages which would collaterally undermine a
conviction or sentence. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1841, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973)
(prohibiting injunctive relief which would result in speedier
or immediate release from a term of imprisonment); Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2372, 129
L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (barring a claim for monetary damages
related to a conviction or sentence until the plaintiff can
show that the conviction or sentence has been invalidated).
“In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114
S.Ct. 2364, 2372-73, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), the Supreme
Court ‘held that a state prisoner's claim for
damages is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if
‘a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily
imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, '
unless the prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or
sentence has previously been invalidated.” Edwards
v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 1586, 137
L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) (quoted in Harden v. Pataki, 320
F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003)). Put another way, “a
state prisoner may not maintain an action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 if the direct or indirect effect of granting
relief would be to invalidate the state sentence he is
serving.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 21,
118 S.Ct. 978, 990, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998) (quoted in
Pataki, 320 F.3d at 1295). Similarly, Plaintiff is
held at the Florida State Hospital after having been found
not competent to proceed. ECF No. 4 at 1. Plaintiff's
involuntary hospitalization is pursuant to a lawful court
order and, thus, Plaintiff is not entitled to monetary
damages for that involuntary hospitalization. Plaintiff's
case should be summarily dismissed.
respectfully RECOMMENDED that
Plaintiff's amended complaint, ECF No. 6, be
DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2), and the motion to show cause, ECF No. 7, be