United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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).
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
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
28 U.S.C. §1915A(b).
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).
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.
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 ...