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.

Brown-Williams v. Fossett

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

December 6, 2019

DONTAVIOUS BROWN-WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
CHINWE FOSSETT, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff Dontavious Brown-Williams' Amended Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 12) and Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 16). Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se. He filed his original Complaint (Doc. 1) on June 24, 2019. On July 2, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to amend the Complaint if he desired to proceed with his claims. (Doc. 6).

         A. Section 1915

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), federal courts are obligated to conduct an initial screening of certain civil suits brought by prisoners to determine whether they should proceed. Section 1915 grants broad discretion to the district courts in the management of in forma pauperis cases and in the denial of motions to proceed in forma pauperis when the complaint is frivolous. Clark v. Ga. Pardons and Paroles Bd, 915 F.2d 636, 639 (11th Cir. 1990); Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984).

         Upon review, a court is required to dismiss a complaint (or any portion thereof) in the following circumstances:

(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 such relief.

28 U.S.C. §1915A(b).

         Thus, the Courts are obligated to screen prisoners' civil rights complaints as soon as practicable and to dismiss those actions which are frivolous or malicious or fail to state a claim for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). A complaint is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Additionally, the Court must read a plaintiff s pro se allegations in a liberal fashion. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).

         B. Section 1983

         Plaintiff states that his claims against Defendant arise under Title 42 United States Code Section 1983. "[S]ection 1983 provides a method for vindicating federal rights conferred by the Constitution and federal statutes." Bannum, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 901 F.2d 989, 997 (11th Cir. 1990). To sufficiently plead a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege the following two elements: "(1) that the act or omission deprived plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) that the act or omission was done by a person acting under color of law." Id. Therefore, a plaintiff must show that the defendant acted under the color of law or otherwise undertook some state action that led to the violation of the plaintiffs rights. Id

         C. Analysis

         Plaintiff has filed suit against Detective Fisher of the Tampa Police Department in his individual and official capacities. (Doc. 12 at 2, 4). Alleging malicious prosecution under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Plaintiff claims that, without supporting DNA or fingerprint evidence and five days after the victim "excluded" Plaintiff as the perpetrator, Detective Fisher erroneously charged and arrested Plaintiff for a robbery that took place at a convenience store on August 11, 2015. Plaintiff was then detained for two years until he was released after winning at trial. (Doc. 12 at 4). He asserts that he suffered a fractured jaw while detained, as well as emotional distress, "discomfort, loss of time, deprivation of society, and being ...


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.