VEGA
v.
DUFFEE
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 court held that judges and prosecutors are immune from suit, and court-appointed attorneys are not state actors for § 1983 claims.
Plaintiff, a detainee under the Jimmy Ryce Act, alleged due process violations in his annual reviews. He sued various state officials, including judge…
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 In Forma Pauperis Review cases and more on FLexlaw
FERNANDEZ-KARAVETSOS, KRISTEN KANNER and SHEVAUN HARRIS,
Defendants. /
OPINION AND ORDER1
Plaintiff Juan Francisco Vega, a detainee at the Florida Civil Commitment Center (FCCC), filed a pro se Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), alleging due process violations. The United States Magistrate Judge
Jimmy Ryce Act, Fla. Stat. 394.910-.932. A person committed under the Jimmy Ryce Act is entitled to “have an examination of his or her mental condition once every year or more frequently at the court’s discretion.” Fla. Stat. 394.918(1). A court then reviews the resulting report and holds a hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to believe it is safe to release the committed person. Fla. Stat. 394.918(3). Vega alleges he did not receive due process in those annual reviews because they did not include adequate “mental health evaluations and risk assessments.” (Doc. 1 at 7).
Vega sues (1) the State Attorneys who filed and argued the original petition for commitment, (2) the psychologists who prepared his annual reports, (3) the judges who made the annual probable-cause determinations; (4) his own court-appointed attorneys, and (5) two officials from the Florida
Department of Children and Families (DCF). Vega seeks a declaration that his due process rights were violated, an injunction ordering Defendants to conduct annual mental health evaluations and risk assessments, and $30 million in damages.
Vega cannot sue the judges and prosecutors. “A judge enjoys absolute immunity from suit for judicial acts performed within the jurisdiction of his court.” McCullough v. Finley, 907 F. 3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2018). Prosecutors likewise enjoy absolute immunity from allegations stemming from their function as advocates. Hart v. Hodges, 587 F. 3d 1288, 1295 (11th Cir. 2009). Vega’s allegations against the judges and prosecutors relate entirely to their participation in his commitment and probable-cause hearings. They are thus immune from this action.
Vega’s claims against his own attorneys also clearly fail. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Vega “must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him of a federal right.” McIndoo v. Broward Cty., 750 F. App’x 816, 819 (11th Cir. 2018). State-appointed attorneys are not state actors for purposes of § 1983. Id. at 820 (citing Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81 (2009)). Vega thus fails to state § 1983 claims against his appointed counsel. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
Plaintiff Juan Francisco Vega’s claims against Defendants Robert Lamons, Debra Cohen, Yehuda Bruck, Katherine Fernandez-Rundle, Audrey Frank-Aponte, Erika Isidron, Griska Mena, Migna Sanchez-Llorens, Alberto Milian, and Marlene Fernandez-Karavetsos are DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate these Defendants as parties to this case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 13, 2021.
site POLSTER atta
UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGE
SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Woodson R. Hart v. Hodges, 587 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2009)