Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bradley v. Godfrey

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division

September 10, 2019

RUSSELL W. BRADLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDON M. GODFREY, DEPUTY, et al., Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          HOPE THAI CANNON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on or about April 11, 2019. ECF Doc. 1. On June 24, 2019, the Court conducted an initial screening of the complaint and entered an Order allowing Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint within thirty (30) days. ECF Doc. 6. On July 26, 2019, the Court gave Plaintiff fourteen (14) days to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a Court order. ECF Doc. 7. On August 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed an incomprehensible document titled “Notice of Change of Address of Plaintiff, ” which did not contain a change of address, but instead included an “information referral, ” an arrest report from December 27, 2018 from the Escambia County Sheriff's Office, a power of attorney and a “complaint against a judge.” ECF Doc. 8. Plaintiff's submission wholly failed to address the Court's show cause order. ECF Doc. 8. Thus, on August 14, 2019, the Court gave Plaintiff another fourteen (14) days to either file a notice of voluntary dismissal or an amended complaint in compliance with the Court's June 24 Order. ECF Doc. 9.

         Plaintiff filed an amended civil rights complaint on or about August 29, 2019. ECF Doc. 10. The undersigned has screened the amended complaint and respectfully recommends that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated at Escambia County Jail. His amended complaint names the following defendants: (1) Deputy Brandon M. Godfrey, described as “very dirty bad guy with a badge”; (2) Judge Joyce Williams, identified as “Dirty $Bad Judge, ” (3) Judge Jennifer Frydrychowicz, described as “bad judge”; (4) and Roy Jones Jr., described as “$BAGMAN$”. ECF Doc. 10 at 1-2. Plaintiff also identifies Johnesia Mathis in the case style, but fails to name Mathis in the listing of defendants.

         As an initial matter, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is almost entirely incomprehensible and illegible. In his statement of facts, Plaintiff incoherently alleges “deputies” have arrested him many times in his house and hotel room for trespassing; and that “dumb deputies arrested” Brian Hooper. ECF Doc. 10 at 4. He claims, “Judge Frydrychowicz & [sic] her nefarious co conspirator [sic] [apparently Judge Williams]” murdered his babies. ECF Doc. 10 at 4. Plaintiff also claims he's been “abused” by “deputies, ” “a vile bad judge, ” and “[the] public defender”; and that all of these Defendants violated their fiduciary duty in bad faith to hurt him illegally. Additionally, Plaintiff claims that Judges Frydrychowicz and Williams are nefarious, abhorrent, treasonous, disgraces to the bench. Plaintiff claims, he is being kept in duress and that he is in “extra peril.”

         Plaintiff alleges Judges Frydrychowicz and Williams violated their sacred oaths, the Ten Commandments, the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, double jeopardy, their fiduciary duties, his civil rights, and his right to proceed pro se. Also, Plaintiff alleges they falsely imprisoned him, committed crimes of moral turpitude, abused their positions, and misused special skills. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Godfrey violated Plaintiff's civil rights by arresting him in “his” hotel room. Plaintiff alleges that both an unnamed public defender and an unnamed prosecutor committed crimes of moral turpitude and violated his civil rights. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that unnamed deputies, an unnamed judge, and an unnamed public defender committed intentional torts and crimes of moral turpitude.

         The entirety of Plaintiff's “statement of claims, ” reads as follows: “The derelict deputy Brandon Godfrey and his fellow nasty thugs with badges violated my civil rights intentionally violently tortuously tortuously and feloniously and also did violate the civil rights of billionaire Fred H. Dierks and born great grandson and heir Mr. Hooper in his/my /our Candlewood Hotel Room & worse the dishonorable Judge Williams and Frydrychowicz violated their fiduciary duty blatantly violating many of my civil rights!” ECF Doc. 10 at 5.

         As relief, Plaintiff seeks the dismissal of Defendant Godfrey from law enforcement; the disbarment of Defendant Frydrychowicz, Defendant Williams, an unnamed public defender and an unnamed prosecutor; and monetary damages of $50 million.

         Plaintiff's amended complaint contains no factual allegations or apparent causes of action as to Defendants Mathis or Jones.

         II. Analysis

         A. Standard of Review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 1915(e)

         Because Plaintiff is a prisoner and is also proceeding pro se, the Court is required to review his complaint, identify cognizable claims and dismiss the complaint, or any portion thereof, 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 such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (applying the same standard to in forma pauperis proceedings). Dismissals for failure to state a claim are governed by the same standard as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1485 (11th Cir. 1997). To survive dismissal, “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) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); Franklin v. Curry, 738 F.3d 1246, 1251 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that courts must follow the Supreme Court's “‘two-pronged approach' of first separating out the complaint's conclusory legal allegations and then determining whether the remaining well-pleaded factual allegations, accepted as true, ‘plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.'”) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).

         To 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 the color of state law or a private individual who conspired with state actors. Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256, 1258 (11th Cir. 2005) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.