Sykes v. Clay County Reporter et al
Doc. 4
Case 3:06-cv-01070-HWM-MMH
Document 4
Filed 12/14/2006
Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION DONALD LEWIS SYKES, Plaintiff, v. CLAY COUNTY REPORTER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Case No. 3:06-cv-1070-J-12MMH
Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at Washington Correctional Institution who is proceeding
se
and
in forma pauperis,
initiated this cause of action by filing a Civil Rights Complaint Form (Doc. #1) (hereinafter Complaint) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5 1983 on December 6, 2006. Plaintiff names the Clay County Reporter and
Judge William A. Wilkes as the defendants. Under the Statement of Claim, Plaintiff states: This is a Fifth Amendment violation, its due process of our Constitution of the United Stated denied this Petitioner his records the true records these people all of them (1) acted under color of state law[;] deprived him of his amendment rights [;I and[, ] (3) that his rights were protected by the United States Constitution. Complaint at 8. On April 26, 1996, the President signed into law the Prison Litigation Reform Act (hereinafter PLRA). The PLRA requires this
Court to dismiss a prisoner's case at any time if the Court
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 3:06-cv-01070-HWM-MMH
Document 4
Filed 12/14/2006
Page 2 of 4
determines that his allegation of poverty is untrue, 28 U. S.C.
§
1915 (e)(2)(A), or the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 US..
§
l
l (e)(2)(B) (I) ( 1 ). Additionally, the Court must read -
Plaintiff's
a se
allegations in a liberal fashion.
Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); see also Miller v. Stanmore, 636 F.2d 986, 988 (5th Cir. 1981). "A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact." Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir.)
(citing Battle v. Central State Hos~ital,898 F.2d 126, 129 (11th Cir. 1990)) , cert. denied, 534 U. S. 1044 (2001)
.
A complaint which
fails to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) is not automatically frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U. S. 319, 328
(1989). Frivolity dismissals should only be ordered when the legal theories are "indisputably meritless,"
A. at
327, or when the
claims rely on factual allegations which are "clearly baseless." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). Additionally, a claim may be dismissed as frivolous when it appears that a plaintiff has little or no chance of success. Bilal v. Driver, 251 F. 3d at 1349. Here, it appears that Plaintiff has little or no chance of success on his due process claim. Plaintiff states that Judge
William Wilkes has control of Plaintiff's criminal record and Plaintiff seeks all of the minutes of the court from February 23,
- 2 -
Case 3:06-cv-01070-HWM-MMH
Document 4
Filed 12/14/2006
Page 3 of 4
2003,
until April
15,
2004,
and t h e
records
from a l l of
the
hearings.
He e x p l a i n s t h a t t h e C l a y C o u n t y R e p o r t e r Company worked
a t t h e h e a r i n g s and t h e t r i a l r e p o r t i n g t h e proceedings. P l a i n t i f f h a s n o t s t a t e d o r p r o v i d e d o p e r a t i v e f a c t s showing how t h e D e f e n d a n t s d e p r i v e d him o f h i s d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s u n d e r t h e United S t a t e s Constitution. P l a i n t i f f a p p a r e n t l y i s seeking a copy
o f h i s c r i m i n a l c a s e ; however, h e h a s n o t s t a t e d w h e t h e r a copy was provided t o appellate counsel, w h e t h e r h e was p r o c e e d i n g a s a n
i n d i g e n t c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t o r whether he h a s a t t e m p t e d t o purchase a copy of t h e r e c o r d s . A l t h o u g h P l a i n t i f f may h a v e had d i f f i c u l t y o b t a i n i n g a c o p y o f h i s c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s , h e h a s n o t a l l e g e d f a c t s which s u p p o r t a c l a i m of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l dimension.
I t was P l a i n t i f f ' s d u t y , n o t
t h e D e f e n d a n t s , t o e n s u r e t h e t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t was p r e p a r e d a n d properly transmitted f o r appeal purposes. T h e r e would h a v e t o h a v e That burden
been a proper r e q u e s t f o r a t r a n s c r i p t t o be prepared. c l e a r l y falls o n t h e a p p e l l a n t .
P l a i n t i f f h a s not provided any
f a c t s showing t h a t a p r o p e r r e q u e s t f o r a t r a n s c r i p t i o n o f t h e r e c o r d was made. Additionally, the Court notes that judges are absolutely
immune f r o m damages f o r t h o s e a c t s t a k e n w h i l e t h e y a r e a c t i n g i n t h e i r j u d i c i a l c a p a c i t y , p r o v i d e d s u c h a c t s a r e n o t done i n clear absence of a l l j u r i s d i c t i o n . ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2000) ; B o l i n v . S t o r v , 225 F.3d 1 2 3 4 , 1 2 3 9 (11th
Simmons v . C o n a e r , 8 6 F. 3d 1 0 8 0 , 1084-85
Case 3:06-cv-01070-HWM-MMH
Document 4
Filed 12/14/2006
Page 4 of 4