United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
GREGORY A. PRESNELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause is before the Court on initial review of
Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Civil Rights Complaint
(“Fourth Amended Complaint, ” Doc. 21).
Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at the John E. Polk
Correctional Facility and proceeding pro se, filed
the Fourth Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
alleges that, on June 5, 2019, Defendant A. Jones “had
the Plaintiff placed in segregated confinement” and
that her reasons for doing so were a “pure work of
fiction.” (Doc. 21 at 6). While in segregated
confinement, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jones denied
him the ability to communicate with “outside
individuals” and to have access to public records.
(Id.). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants L. Bedard.
L. Howard, and C. Williams “were complicit with and
assisted A. Jones . . . .” (Id.).
states that, on June 20, 2019, Defendant Jones
“amended” her reasons for placing Plaintiff in
segregated confinement but that those reasons were
unsubstantiated and “refuted by the records.”
(Id. at 10). On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff was served
with “a DR after spending [a] month in [segregated]
confinement.” (Id. at 15). Plaintiff
“appealed the DR to Captain L. Howard, ” but the
appeal was denied. (Id. at 17). On July 8, 2019,
“all forms of communication were severed by A.
Jones.” (Id.). Plaintiff claims that the
disciplinary report “violated due process of law”
and was untimely because it was issued “18 days after
the lawful window to write a DR had slammed shut.”
(Id. at 16).
seeks damages for being “wrongfully confined, ”
and he requests that Defendants be required “to
complete at least a 40-hour training course on professional
responsibility, ” that Defendants “be retrained
for their positions, ” and that Defendants be placed
“on probation.” (Id. at 18). Plaintiff
also seeks an order removing Defendant Jones from her current
position and placing her on suspension for sixty days.
(Id.). In addition, Plaintiff requests that
Defendants return to him “all the time which was
unconstitutionally taken from him.” (Id.).
seeks redress from a governmental entity or employee, and,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915A(a), the Court is
obligated to screen such a prisoner civil rights complaint as
soon as practicable. On review, the Court is required to
dismiss the complaint (or any portion thereof) under the
(b) Grounds for Dismissal.--On review, the court shall
identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any
portion of the complaint, if the complaint--
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
28 U.S.C. §1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (“[n]otwithstanding 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 . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous
or malicious.”). Additionally, the Court must read a
plaintiff's pro se allegations in a liberal
fashion. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff
must prove (1) a violation of a constitutional right, and (2)
that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting
under color of state law.” Holmes v. Crosby,
418 F.3d 1256, 1258 (11th Cir. 2005).
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme
Court held that claims for damages arising from challenges to
the legality of a prisoner's confinement are not
cognizable in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action “unless
and until the conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged,
invalidated, or impugned by the grant of a writ of habeas
corpus” and complaints containing such claims must
therefore be dismissed. Id. 489-90. Moreover, a
state prisoner's “claim for declaratory relief and
money damages, . . . that necessarily imply the invalidity of
the punishment imposed [in a disciplinary proceeding,
including a loss of good-time credits], is not cognizable
under § 1983 . . .“ unless the prisoner
demonstrates that the challenged action has previously been
invalidated. Edward ...