Sutton v. Holloman ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION DORSEY W. SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 5:23-cv-188-CEM-PRL CHARLES R. HOLLOMAN, P.A., Defendant. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff Dorsey W. Sutton’s Civil Rights Complaint (“Complaint,” Doc. 1) filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is an inmate in the Florida Department of Corrections proceeding pro se and was granted leave to proceed as a pauper. (Doc. 9). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), federal courts are obligated to conduct an initial screening of certain civil suits brought by prisoners to determine whether they should proceed. Upon review, a court is required to dismiss a complaint (or any portion thereof) in the following circumstances: (b) Grounds for Dismissal.--On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint— (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). In addition, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) directs courts to dismiss actions which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Additionally, the Court must read a plaintiff’s pro se allegations in a liberal fashion. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). Dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim are governed by the same standard as Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1485 (11th Cir. 1997). Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed if the facts do not state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. See Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). A complaint is also subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) “when its allegations, on their face, show that an affirmative defense bars recovery on the claim.” Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1357 (11th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff has filed suit against Charles R. Holloman, P.A., the law firm Plaintiff hired to represent him in a state law case. (Doc. 1 at 2). Plaintiff alleges that Charles Holloman, in his capacity as defense counsel, provided ineffective assistance during his representation by “fail[ing] to perform his contractual duties which any reasonable defense attorney would have been compelled to follow.” (Id. at 1–2). Plaintiff’s case is due to be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Defendant, a private defense attorney, is not a State actor for purposes of suit under § 1983. “To obtain relief under § 1983, [a party] must show that he was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.” Patrick v. Floyd Medical Center, 201 F.3d 1313, 1315 (11th Cir. 2000). Only in rare circumstances may a private party be viewed as a State actor for purposes of liability under § 1983. To hold that private parties are State actors, this Court must conclude that one of the following conditions is met: (1) the State coerced or at least significantly encouraged the action alleged to violate the Constitution (State compulsion test); (2) the private parties performed a public function that was traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the State (public function test); or (3) the State had so far insinuated itself into a position of interdependence with the private parties that it was a joint participant in the enterprise (nexus/joint action test). Rayburn ex rel. Rayburn v. Hogue, 241 F.3d 1341, 1347 (11th Cir. 2001). Even liberally construed, the allegations in the Complaint do not suggest that Plaintiff could meet any of those tests. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 12, 2023 CARLOS E. MENDOZA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD@E Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Party Page 4 of 4