CORDERO
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Department of Corrections, as an arm of the state, is not a 'person' subject to monetary liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
An inmate sued the Florida Department of Corrections alleging officers broke his finger during a cell extraction. The inmate sought monetary damages.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Arm Of The State Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff Ronald H. Cordero, an inmate in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC), initiated this action by filing a pro se Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Complaint; Doc. 1) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the Complaint, Cordero names the FDOC as the Defendant. He alleges that officers at Union Correctional Institution broke his finger during a cell extraction on February3, 2022. Complaint at 5. As relief, Cordero requests monetary damages. Id. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires the Court to dismiss this case at any time if the Court determines that 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.1 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A. “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. 2001) (citing Battle v. Cent. State Hosp., 898 F. 2d 126, 129 (11th Cir. 1990)). A complaint filed in forma pauperis which fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is not automatically frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) dismissals should only be ordered when the legal theories are “indisputably meritless,” id. at 327, or when the claims rely on factual allegations which are “clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). “Frivolous claims include claims
‘describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar.’” Bilal, 251 F. 3d at 1349 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328). Additionally, a claim may be dismissed as frivolous when it appears that a plaintiff has little or no chance of success. Id. As to whether a complaint
“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” the language of the PLRA mirrors the language of Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
F. 3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant deprived him of a right secured under the United States Constitution or federal law, and (2) such deprivation occurred under color of state law. Salvato v. Miley, 790 F. 3d 1286, 1295 (11th Cir. 2015); Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F. 3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam); Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F. 3d 734, 737 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Moreover, under Eleventh Circuit precedent, to prevail in a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must show
“an affirmative causal connection between the official’s acts or omissions and the alleged constitutional deprivation.” Zatler v. Wainwright, 802 F. 2d 397, 401 (11th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted); Porter v. White, 483 F. 3d 1294, 1306 n.10 (11th Cir. 2007).
In assessing the Complaint, the Court must read Cordero’s pro se allegations in a liberal fashion. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). And, while “[p]ro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings
overruled in part on other grounds as recognized in Randall, 610 F. 3d at 709). Here, Cordero names one Defendant: the FDOC. Complaint at 2. State and governmental entities that are considered “arms of the state” are not “persons” subject to monetary liability within the meaning of § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70 (1989). The FDOC is an arm of the executive branch of state government, see Fla. Stat. § 20.315, and thus is not a person for purposes of § 1983 litigation, see Gardner v. Riska, 444 F. App’x 353, 355 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding that plaintiff’s claim for damages against the FDOC, a state agency, was frivolous because state agencies are not persons subject to monetary liability under § 1983).3 Therefore, this case will
1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing this case without prejudice, terminating any pending motions, and closing the case. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 24th day of July, 2023.
United States District Judge
Jax-9 7/24 Cc: Ronald H. Cordero, #D49860
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (18 total)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989)
- McNamara v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 30 F.4th 1055 (11th Cir. 2022)
- Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989)
- Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 1998)
- GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. OF Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 1998)
- Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483 (11th Cir. 1997)
- Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2011)