WALKER v. INMATE MAGAZINE SERVICE INC
3:16-cv-00610
N.D. Fla.Dec 5, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Maurice E. Walker, an inmate at Santa Rosa Correctional Institution, alleged he ordered five magazine subscriptions from Inmate Magazine Service, Inc. but never received the magazines.
- He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking $26.00 in subscription refunds, postage reimbursement, and $80,000 for mental anguish.
- Walker was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis.
- The magistrate judge reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Rule 12(b)(6) standards (Iqbal plausibility standard).
- The magistrate concluded the claims are state-law causes of action (fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and Florida consumer-protection law) and do not present a federal question.
- The magistrate also concluded a private company is not a state actor for § 1983 purposes and recommended dismissal with prejudice and that the dismissal count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint states a federal claim under § 1983 | Walker alleges deprivation based on not receiving magazines and seeks relief under § 1983 | Implicit: Defendant (private company) is not a state actor and claims are state-law disputes | Dismissed: No § 1983 claim because defendant is a private actor; no state action |
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists | Walker framed claims as civil-rights violations in federal court | Claims are common-law/state consumer claims that do not present a federal question | Dismissed for lack of federal question; claims are state-law only |
| Whether complaint meets Rule 12(b)(6)/§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) plausibility | Walker pleads facts of non-delivery and seeks damages | Allegations are conclusory and insufficient to state a plausible federal civil-rights claim | Dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim under Iqbal/Twombly standards |
| Whether dismissal should count as a strike under § 1915(g) | Walker seeks in forma pauperis relief | Court recommended treating dismissal as a strike because claim is frivolous/meritless under § 1915 standards | Recommended: Dismissal with prejudice and count as a strike under § 1915(g) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483 (11th Cir. 1997) (§ 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal standard tracks Rule 12(b)(6))
- Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 120 F.3d 1390 (11th Cir. 1997) (complaint allegations taken as true and construed for plaintiff)
- Gonzalez v. Reno, 325 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2003) (civil-rights complaints require more than conclusory notice pleading)
- Hill v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 364 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2004) (federal question must appear on face of complaint)
- Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2001) (federal-question jurisdiction principles)
- Wyke v. Polk Cnty. School Bd., 129 F.3d 560 (11th Cir. 1997) (state-law claims belong in state court absent federal question)
- Giannetti Bros. Const. Corp. v. Lee County, 585 F. Supp. 1214 (M.D. Fla.) (distinguishing state-law suits from federal jurisdiction)
- Harvey v. Harvey, 949 F.2d 1127 (11th Cir. 1992) (private parties are generally not state actors for § 1983)