FRANKLIN v. BEVILLE
4:18-cv-00117
N.D. Fla.Aug 3, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Jamal Franklin, proceeding pro se and granted in forma pauperis status, was ordered to file an amended complaint by specified deadlines but failed to do so.
- Court attempts to notify Plaintiff were returned undeliverable initially; Plaintiff later filed change-of-address notices and was given an extension and copies of prior orders.
- The Magistrate Judge warned that failure to file the amended complaint would result in a recommendation of dismissal.
- Plaintiff filed a motion to change venue after missing the deadline to amend; he seeks monetary damages based on statements by a state prosecutor at an arraignment.
- The Report concludes the original complaint is legally insufficient, Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s order, venue transfer is unwarranted based on Plaintiff’s relocation, and prosecutors are immune from § 1983 suits for actions tied to the judicial phase of prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal is warranted for failure to file the court-ordered amended complaint | Franklin intended to proceed and submitted address changes; did not file amended complaint | Plaintiff failed to comply with explicit Court order and deadlines | Case recommended dismissed for failure to comply with Court order |
| Whether the original complaint states a claim under § 1983 | Seeks monetary damages for prosecutor’s remarks at arraignment | Prosecutorial conduct in initiating/presenting prosecution is immune | Complaint insufficient; damages claim against prosecutor barred by absolute immunity |
| Whether federal court may interfere with ongoing state proceedings | N/A (no federal interference asserted) | Federal court should abstain under Younger doctrine | Court cannot interfere with pending state court proceedings (Younger abstention applies) |
| Whether venue should be changed because Plaintiff moved to New York | Plaintiff requests transfer due to relocation | Venue is proper where defendants acted or reside; relocation not a basis to transfer | Motion to change venue denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (Younger abstention bars federal interference with ongoing state prosecutions)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (absolute prosecutorial immunity for actions intimately associated with judicial phase of criminal process)
- Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 1999) (clarifies scope of prosecutorial immunity in § 1983 suits)