Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-22-14292/USCOURTS-ca11-22-14292-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-14292

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

GIOVANNI DEPALMA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cv-02745-CEH-CPT

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-14292 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-14292

Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Giovanni DePalma, proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 civil complaint for failure 

to state a claim in light of Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973),

and Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). DePalma asserts the 

district court erred by not addressing his arguments regarding the 

state criminal convictions challenged in his complaint, including 

that the state trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. After review,1 we affirm. 

A court shall dismiss a prisoner’s complaint if the court determines that the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1). “[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact 

or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is 

a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ 

of habeas corpus.” Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500. 

A § 1983 action cannot be used to collaterally attack a conviction or sentence unless the underlying conviction or sentence 

“has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, 

1 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). 

USCA11 Case: 22-14292 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 2 of 4
22-14292 Opinion of the Court 3

declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a 

writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. Although Heck

involved a prisoner seeking money damages, the Supreme Court 

later clarified that prisoners cannot use § 1983 to obtain relief 

where success would imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence, even if the prisoner is seeking injunctive relief. Wilkinson v. 

Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005). 

The district court did not err in dismissing DePalma’s complaint as barred under Preiser and Heck. First, although DePalma 

presented his claim under § 1981 rather than § 1983, Preiser and 

Heck apply to his § 1981 complaint. Liberally construing his complaint, DePalma likely meant to challenge his conviction under 

§ 1983, rather than § 1981, because he raises constitutional claims, 

not claims regarding racial discrimination in making or enforcing a 

contract. See Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th 

Cir. 1998) (stating pro se pleadings are liberally construed); compare

42 U.S.C. § 1983 with 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Moreover, Preiser and Heck

apply to § 1981 claims as well as § 1983 claims. See Cruz v. Skelton, 

502 F.2d 1101, 1102 (5th Cir. 1974)2 (citing Preiser and holding that 

since relief sought by prisoner was injunctive relief requiring his 

release from confinement, his proper remedy was habeas corpus, 

not a suit under § 1981). DePalma’s complaint challenges the 

2 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), 

this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981. 

USCA11 Case: 22-14292 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 22-14292

validity of his convictions, and he requests “immediate discharge” 

from incarceration. These claims are precisely the type that are 

barred by Preiser because DePalma is seeking a determination he is 

entitled to an immediate release. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500. DePalma’s claims are also barred by Heck because a determination he 

is entitled to immediate release because the amended information 

leading to his conviction was void would necessarily undermine 

the validity of his convictions, and he has not demonstrated that 

his convictions have been overturned. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-

87; Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81-82.

Additionally, even if the district court had liberally construed his complaint as a habeas petition, it would have been dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive petition because 

DePalma had already filed a habeas petition and had not received 

authorization from this Court to file a second or successive petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (providing to file a second or 

successive § 2254 petition, a petitioner must first get approval from 

this Court); Hill v. Hopper, 112 F.3d 1088, 1089 (11th Cir. 1997) (explaining without our authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition). Accordingly, we 

affirm. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-14292 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 4 of 4