Opinion
Case No. 05-21625-CIV-MORENO.
August 22, 2005
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Introduction
The plaintiff, Victor Montesino, currently housed at the Turner Guilford Knight Correction Center, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [DE #1]. The plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. [DE# 4].
This cause is presently before the Court for initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
II. Analysis
As amended, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 reads in pertinent part as follows:
Sec. 1915 Proceedings in Forma Pauperis
* * *
(e)(2) Notwithstanding 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 —
* * *
(B) the action or appeal —
* * *
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
The standard for determining whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted is the same whether under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or (c). SeeMitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11 Cir. 1997) ("The language of section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)"). When reviewing complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must apply the standard of review set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and the Court must accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom. In order to state a claim, a plaintiff must show that conduct under color of state law, complained of in the civil rights suit, violated the plaintiff's rights, privileges, or immunities under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Whitehorn v. Harrelson, 758 F.2d 1416, 1419 (11 Cir. 1985). Pro se complaints are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). The Eleventh Circuit recently confirmed that there is a heightened pleading standard in § 1983 actions against entities that can raise qualified immunity as a defense.Swann v. Southern Health Partners, Inc., 388 F.3d 834, 837 (11 Cir. 2004). While Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 allows a plaintiff considerable leeway in framing a complaint, the Eleventh Circuit has tightened the application of Rule 8 with respect to § 1983 cases in an effort to weed out nonmeritorious claims, requiring that a § 1983 plaintiff allege with some specificity the facts which make out its claim. GJR Investments, Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1367 (11 Cir. 1998); Oladeinde v. City of Birmingham, 963 F.2d 1481, 1485 (11 Cir. 1992),cert. denied sub nom. Deutcsh v. Oladeinde, 507 U.S. 987 (1993). Nevertheless, the threshold is "exceedingly low" for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Ancata v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 769 F.2d 700, 703 (11 Cir. 1985).
A. Statement of Claim
The plaintiff alleges that on April 17, 2005, the defendants illegally searched his cell and removed a letter from his attorney. The plaintiff states that the reason for the search was that criminal investigators were looking for evidence of wrongdoing by the attorney, and they wanted the letter for their investigation. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and the return of the letter.
B. Analysis
The plaintiff alleges that his cell was searched by officials looking for evidence of wrongdoing by his attorney, which had nothing to do with the plaintiff. In Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), the Supreme Court addressed objections by pretrial detainees to the conditions of their confinement, one of which was routine "shakedown" searches out of the detainees' view. The Supreme Court found no Fourth Amendment violation, but stated in dicta that "[i]t may well be argued that a person confined in a detention facility has no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to his room or cell and that therefore the Fourth Amendment provides no protection for such a person." Id. at 556-57. According to Bell, the leading Supreme Court opinion on the rights of pretrial detainees, "even the most zealous advocate of prisoners' rights would not suggest that a warrant is required. . . . Detainees' drawers, beds, and personal items may be searched. . . ." Bell, 441 U.S. at 557. Bell reasons that detainees' privacy must yield to the state's paramount interest in security. The state's legitimate interest in protecting society from inmates and inmates from each other applies to pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners alike; "maintaining institutional security and preserving internal order and discipline are essential goals that may require limitation or retraction of the retained constitutional rights of both convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees." Bell, 441 U.S. at 546. This need to assure security is independent of any punitive purpose, which, according to Bell and its successors, serves to distinguish the conditions and treatment permissible for convicted prisoners from that permissible for pretrial detainees.
The plaintiff has raised no cognizable claim under the Fourth Amendment with regard to the search of his cell or his belongings, nor has he raised any other cognizable federal constitutional claim with regard to a violation of attorney/client privilege or the failure to return personal property. It is therefore recommended that this claim be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
III. Conclusion
It is therefore recommended that this civil action be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and the case be closed.
Objections to this report may be filed with the District Judge within ten days of receipt of a copy of the report.
It is so recommended at Miami, Florida.