Opinion
3:24-cv-1108-BJD-LLL
11-04-2024
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL WEBSTER, Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
BRIAN J. DAVIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, Christopher Williams, an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC), initiated this action pro se by filing a complaint for the violation of civil rights (Doc. 1). He names one Defendant: United States Congressman Daniel Webster. See Doc. 1 at 2. Plaintiff claims he is a “slave” of the United States by virtue of his incarceration in the FDC, a realization he recently made when he read “the language [of] the 13th Amendment [and discovered] that slavery is not 100% abolished” in this country, contrary to what he learned in school. Id. at 4-5 (internal punctuation omitted). As relief, he seeks public attention to “this matter,” for Congressman Webster to “work to change the language [of] the 13th Amendment,” and damages for pain and mental suffering. Id. at 5.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires a district court to dismiss a complaint if the court determines it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b)(1). Since the PLRA's “failure-to-state-a-claim” language mirrors the language of Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts apply the same standard in both contexts. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). See also Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, nor has he filed a motion to proceed as a pauper under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Given he has not paid the filing fee, the Court presumes he intends to proceed as a pauper.
“To survive a motion to dismiss, 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) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” that amount to “naked assertions” will not suffice. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Moreover, a complaint must “contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.” Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting In re Plywood Antitrust Litig., 655 F.2d 627, 641 (5th Cir. Unit A Sept. 8, 1981)). In reviewing a complaint, a court must accept the plaintiff's allegations as true, liberally construing those by a plaintiff proceeding pro se, but need not accept as true legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Plaintiff seeks to sue a United States Congressman. As such, Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), is the controlling authority. “Bivens established that the victims of a constitutional violation by a federal agent have a right to recover damages against the official in federal court despite the absence of any statute conferring such a right.” Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18 (1980) (emphasis added). Plaintiff does not identify a plausible constitutional violation of which he was a victim. “[W]here a person is duly tried, convicted, sentenced and imprisoned for [a] crime in accordance with [the] law, no issue of peonage or involuntary servitude arises. The Thirteenth Amendment has no application where a person is held to answer for a violation of a penal statute.” Omasta v. Wainwright, 696 F.2d 1304, 1305 (11th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff also does not allege that any perceived violation was Congressman Webster's fault. See Doc. 1 at 4.
It appears Plaintiff is attempting to shroud an attack on his conviction as a grievance about the wording of the Thirteenth Amendment. If Plaintiff seeks to challenge his criminal conviction, a civil rights action is not the proper avenue through which to seek relief. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 486, 489 (1973) (explaining that “habeas corpus [is] . . . the specific instrument to obtain release” from allegedly unlawful confinement, and a state prisoner must first seek relief in the state court before seeking relief in federal court).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this case without prejudice, terminate any pending motions, and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED.