Case: 18-14170 Date Filed: 07/22/2019 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-14170
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cv-23198-CMA
CHARLES EDWARD STALLWORTH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE DAVID COLLINS,
Assistant State Attorney, in Individual and Official Capacity,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 22, 2019)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-14170 Date Filed: 07/22/2019 Page: 2 of 4
Charles Stallworth, proceeding pro se, filed a civil complaint against Wayne
Collins, an assistant state attorney in the State of Florida. Stallworth brought suit
under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and claims that the assistant state attorney violated his
Fourteenth Amendment rights by “discharging” an indictment against him in 2001
and failing to re-file a new indictment before a grand jury. Stallworth was then
tried in state court and convicted of first-degree murder and related charges and
sentenced to life in prison. He requests “injunctive relief commanding the
correction of the unlawful imprisonment that was not authorized by law, and to
release [him] from all restraints of the Florida Department of Correction[s] in
which he is illegally detained based upon a void indictment.” The District Court
found that Stallworth’s complaint fails to state a viable claim and dismissed it sua
sponte. He now appeals the dismissal.
Stallworth was proceeding in forma pauperis. Thus, the District Court was
required to dismiss his case if it determined his complaint was “frivolous or
malicious,”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), or “fail[ed] to state a claim on which
relief may be granted,”
id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). “[A]n action is frivolous if it is
‘without arguable merit either in law or fact.’” Napier v. Preslicka,
314 F.3d 528,
531 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Bilal v. Driver,
251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir.
2001)). We review the District Court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim de
2
Case: 18-14170 Date Filed: 07/22/2019 Page: 3 of 4
novo, “viewing the allegations in the complaint as true.” Mitchell v. Farcass,
112
F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997).
Section 1983 provides a cause of action for private citizens to sue
government actors who violate their constitutional rights and other federal laws.
See
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The challenged conduct must have (1) deprived the plaintiff
of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and (2) been
committed by a person acting under color of state law. Focus on the Family v.
Pinellas Suncoast Transit Auth.,
344 F.3d 1263, 1276–77 (11th Cir. 2003).
But § 1983 does have a limit. For example, the Supreme Court has said that
a state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)—
no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the
target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or
internal prison proceedings)—if success in that action would
necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.
Wilkinson v. Dotson,
544 U.S. 74, 81–82,
125 S. Ct. 1242, 1248 (2005). 1
Here, Stallworth is challenging the merits of his conviction and sentence, but
he has not shown that either was previously invalidated. Thus, his § 1983 action is
1
This explanation in Wilkinson derives from the Court’s earlier decisions in Preiser v.
Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475,
93 S. Ct. 1827 (1973), and Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477,
114 S. Ct.
2364 (1994). In Preiser, the Court held “that when a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or
duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is
entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal
remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”
411 U.S. at 500,
93 S. Ct. at 1841. In Heck, the Court held
that, “to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other
harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a §
1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence” (1) “has been reversed on direct
appeal,” (2) “expunged by executive order,” (3) “declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized
to make such determination, or” (4) “called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus,
28 U.S.C. § 2254.”
512 U.S. at 486–87,
114 S. Ct. at 2372 (footnote omitted).
3
Case: 18-14170 Date Filed: 07/22/2019 Page: 4 of 4
barred. And because he “is challenging the very fact . . . of his physical
imprisonment” and “seeks . . . a determination that he is entitled to immediate
release . . . from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas
corpus.” Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 500,
93 S. Ct. 1827, 1841 (1973).
Thus, his suit under § 1983 has no arguable merit in law. 2
The judgment of the District Court is
AFFIRMED.
2
As an alternative holding, the District Court found that Stallworth’s claim was barred
because the assistant state attorney is entitled to prosecutorial immunity. But because Stallworth
asks for injunctive relief, not damages, the assistant state attorney is not entitled to prosecutorial
immunity. Bolin v. Story,
225 F.3d 1234, 1242 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). This error was
harmless because Stallworth’s complaint must be dismissed for the reasons we explained above.
4
