Eric Turner v. Broward Sheriff's Office, et al., No. 12-14885 (11th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 12-14885 Date Filed: 10/04/2013 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-14885 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-61038-RNS ERIC TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BROWARD SHERIFF S OFFICE, HOLLYWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE CYNTHIA BATES, OFFICER K. BECKFORD, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (October 4, 2013) Before DUBINA, WILSON, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 12-14885 Date Filed: 10/04/2013 Page: 2 of 7 Eric Turner (Turner), proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Broward County Sheriff s Office (BCSO), Hollywood Police Department, Detective Cynthia Bates (Bates), and Officer K. Beckford (Beckford) (collectively, Defendants), in which he alleges that he was arrested based upon falsified police reports and affidavits. Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties briefs, we affirm. I. Background The magistrate judge determined that Turner s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994), and, alternatively, Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746 (1971). The district court adopted the magistrate s recommendation over Turner s objections, dismissing his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). On appeal, Turner contends that Defendants falsely arrested and illegally detained him in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. He argues that Defendants should be held liable because he was arrested only after Bates submitted a falsified probable-cause affidavit to the state court.1 1 Additionally, Turner argues for the first time on appeal that has was detained without being routinely process[ed] back into BCSO s jail, in violation of his due process rights. As this argument was not raised before the district court, we will not consider it. See Porter v. Ogden, Newell & Welch, 241 F.3d 1334, 1340 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877(1976) ( It is the general rule, of course, that a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below. )). Similarly, the exhibits that Turner submits with his appellate brief which are not part of the record on appeal will not be 2 Case: 12-14885 II. Date Filed: 10/04/2013 Page: 3 of 7 Legal Standards We review de novo a district court s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), viewing the allegations in the complaint as true. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1159 60 (11th Cir. 2003); Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). We liberally construe pro se briefs. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a court shall dismiss a case proceeding in forma pauperis at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard as a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While a complaint does not need detailed factual allegations to survive a motion to dismiss, the entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). considered. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a); Welding Servs., Inc. v. Forman, 509 F.3d 1351, 1357 (11th Cir. 2007). 3 Case: 12-14885 Date Filed: 10/04/2013 Page: 4 of 7 Under Heck v. Humphrey, a plaintiff cannot bring a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if a judgment in the plaintiff s favor would render a state conviction or sentence invalid, unless the plaintiff proves that the conviction or sentence has been invalidated by an entity with the authority to do so. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87; 114 S. Ct. at 2372. Accordingly, when a state prisoner brings a § 1983 claim for damages, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. Id.; see Hughes, 350 F.3d at 1160 61 n.2 ( Thus, the court must look both to the claims raised under § 1983 and to the specific offenses for which the § 1983 claimant was convicted. ). If the claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction or sentence and the plaintiff cannot establish that the conviction or sentence already has been invalidated, then the court must dismiss the complaint. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487, 114 S.Ct. at 2372. Typically, a § 1983 action necessarily implies the invalidity of a conviction if the action requires negating an element of the offense of conviction. See id. at 486 87 n.6. However, Heck is not implicated if there is not a necessary logical connection between a successful § 1983 suit and the negation of the underlying conviction. Dyer v. Lee, 488 F.3d 876, 880 (11th Cir. 2007) (emphasis in original). Further, the Heck bar applies only when there is a conviction or sentence that has not been invalidated. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393, 127 S. Ct. 1091, 4 Case: 12-14885 Date Filed: 10/04/2013 Page: 5 of 7 1098 (2007) (indicating that Heck did not preclude an anticipated future conviction ). Moreover, where a plaintiff brought a § 1983 suit alleging arrest without probable cause, and participated in Florida s pretrial intervention program, we held that because plaintiff was not convicted of any offense, Heck preclusion did not apply. McClish v. Nugent, 483 F.3d 1231, 1251 52 (11th Cir. 2007). In Younger, the Supreme Court held that federal courts should not stay or enjoin pending state court proceedings except under special circumstances. 401 U.S. at 41, 91 S. Ct. at 749. The Younger abstention doctrine is based on the premise that a pending state prosecution will provide the accused with a sufficient chance to vindicate his federal constitutional rights. Hughes v. Att y Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258, 1263 n.7 (11th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Younger abstention is required when (1) the proceedings constitute an ongoing state judicial proceeding, (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests, and (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges. Christman v. Crist, 315 Fed. Appx. 231, 232 (11th Cir. 2009); 31 Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255, 1275 82 (11th Cir. 2003). Under the Younger doctrine, federal courts are required to abstain if the state criminal prosecution commenced before any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place in federal court, or if the federal case is in an embryonic stage and no contested matter [has] been decided. For Your Eyes Alone, Inc. v. 5 Case: 12-14885 Date Filed: 10/04/2013 Page: 6 of 7 City of Columbus, 281 F.3d 1209, 1217 (11th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Redner v. Citrus Cnty., 919 F.2d 646, 649 (11th Cir. 1990) (explaining that Younger abstention is appropriate where the state prosecution commenced after the federal complaint was filed but before any proceedings on the merits had taken place in federal court). However, Younger abstention is inappropriate if there is no pending state criminal prosecution of the plaintiff. Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 462, 94 S. Ct. 1209, 1217 (1974) (noting that the principles underlying Younger s abstention doctrine, including equity, comity, and federalism, have little force where there is no pending state proceeding). We review the district court s decision to abstain based on Younger for abuse of discretion. For Your Eyes Alone, 281 F.3d at 1216. III. Discussion First, we take judicial notice that Turner was sentenced, on August 27, 2013, to ten years for false imprisonment and five years for 2+ simple battery, based on offenses he committed on November 8, 2011.2 Based upon this information, at the time the district court dismissed Turner s complaint, the charges which resulted in these convictions were still pending. It appears that, given Turner s state criminal convictions were not final at the time he filed his complaint, his claims would not 2 Turner was sentenced after he filed his appeal brief on June 3, 2013. See Offender Information Search, Fla. Dep t of Corr., http://www.dc.state.fl.us/AppCommon (search DC Number Q03280); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201 (permitting a court, at any stage of a proceeding, to take judicial notice of a fact that can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. ). 6 Case: 12-14885 Date Filed: 10/04/2013 Page: 7 of 7 be barred by Heck. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393, 127 S. Ct. at 1098 (rejecting an extension of the Heck bar which would preclude § 1983 claims before the plaintiff has been convicted); McClish, 483 F.3d at 1250 52. Nevertheless, because we find that the district court properly abstained from the merits of this case pursuant to Younger, we need not decide whether this case was barred by Heck. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by deciding that Turner s claims were precluded by Younger. Indeed, Younger abstention was appropriate because (1) the state criminal proceedings against Turner were pending; (2) criminal proceedings involve important state interests; and (3) Turner could have raised his constitutional challenges in the state criminal proceedings. See Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 432, 102 S. Ct. at 2521. The record indicates that Turner s state criminal proceedings commenced prior to his filing a complaint or any proceedings of substance on the merits of this case, and thus Younger abstention was appropriate. See For Your Eyes Alone, 281 F.3d at 1217. Accordingly, the Court affirms on this ground. AFFIRMED. 7

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.