Craig Bassett v. Governor of Florida, No. 18-13120 (11th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-13120 Date Filed: 02/01/2019 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-13120 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cv-00487-RH-CAS CRAIG BASSETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida ________________________ (February 1, 2019) Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and JORDAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-13120 Date Filed: 02/01/2019 Page: 2 of 3 Craig Lewis Bassett, a Florida prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his complaint that the Governor of Florida violated his federal civil rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed his amended complaint for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim. Bassett argues that the Governor’s refusal to address an alleged inconsistency between a Florida judicial rule of procedure and a state statute violated his federal constitutional right to due process of law. We affirm. Bassett is serving a sentence of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole for convictions by a Florida court of one count of sexual battery on a person less than 12 years of age and two counts of lewd or lascivious molestation on a person less than 12 years of age. Bassett alleges that, during his criminal trial, he asked his defense counsel to inform the jury of the life-without-parole sentence he would receive if convicted. His counsel allegedly informed him that a judicial rule did not allow him to do so, and the jury later found Bassett guilty as charged. Bassett alleges that, years later, he discovered a Florida statute that allegedly mandated a “jury penalty instruction.” Bassett sued the Governor of Florida and alleged that the failure to inform a jury of the sentence a defendant would receive, if convicted, violates his right to due process. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of standing. Freeman v. First Union Nat’l, 329 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir. 2003). Standing is a threshold jurisdictional 2 Case: 18-13120 Date Filed: 02/01/2019 Page: 3 of 3 issue that requires a showing of an injury in fact fairly traceable to the defendant that a favorable judicial decision could redress. DiMaio v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 520 F.3d 1299, 1301–02 (11th Cir. 2008). “[A] plaintiff seeking only injunctive or declaratory relief must prove not only an injury, but also a real and immediate threat of future injury in order to satisfy the injury in fact requirement.” Koziara v. City of Casselberry, 392 F.3d 1302, 1305 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). And a district court “shall dismiss” a case filed in forma pauperis if the court determines that the complaint “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim is reviewed de novo, “viewing the allegations in the complaint as true.” Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). The district court committed no error in dismissing Bassett’s complaint. As the district court stated, “Mr. Bassett has named as a defendant only the Governor of Florida—an official who had no role in Mr. Bassett’s prosecution, conviction, or sentencing, who had no role in adopting the challenged procedure, and who does not follow or apply that procedure.” Bassett’s complaint fails to allege an actual or imminent injury fairly traceable to the Governor for which the district court could have afforded him any meaningful relief. AFFIRMED. 3
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.
