Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-13810/USCOURTS-ca11-14-13810-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Bikoff
Appellee
Adrian Jenkins
Appellant
Susan M. Walker
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13810

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:14-cv-00044-BAE-JEG

ADRIAN JENKINS, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

SUSAN M. WALKER, 

DAVID BIKOFF, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(July 10, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Adrian Jenkins appeals pro se the district court’s sua sponte dismissal, for 

failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint against court reporter Susan Walker and Georgia assistant attorney 

USCA11 Case: 14-13810 Date Filed: 07/10/2015 Page: 1 of 6
2

general David Bikoff. Jenkins claims in the complaint that during proceedings for 

his state habeas petition, he was denied due process and access to the courts 

because Bikoff opposed his motion for a continuance of the habeas evidentiary 

hearing until Jenkins could obtain free trial transcripts. Then, says Jenkins, when 

he finally did receive the transcripts, several keys portions were altered or deleted, 

despite Walker certifying the transcripts were true and correct. On appeal, Jenkins 

argues that he suffered an actual injury when Bikoff opposed his motion for the 

transcripts, and when the state court based its habeas corpus ruling on the defective 

transcripts. After careful review, we affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.

We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state 

a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 

(11th Cir. 2006). In evaluating dismissals under § 1915(b)(1), we use the same 

standard that governs dismissals under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See Leal v. Ga.

Dep’t of Corr., 254 F.3d 1276, 1278-79 (11th Cir. 2001) (concluding that § 1915A 

mirrors the language of dismissals under § 1915(e), which, in turn, tracks the 

language of Rule 12(b)(6)). The complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to 

the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s well-pleaded facts are accepted as true. Am. 

United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043, 1057 (11th Cir. 2007). To avoid 

dismissal, the complaint must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim has facial plausibility when 

USCA11 Case: 14-13810 Date Filed: 07/10/2015 Page: 2 of 6
3

the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. 

An indigent litigant’s fundamental right to have access to the courts requires 

that an inmate be provided a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed 

violations of fundamental constitutional rights. Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 

F.3d 1321, 1323 (11th Cir. 2001). States should provide a trial transcript or 

adequate substitute in order to provide for “adequate and effective” appellate 

review. See Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 20 (1956). A prisoner alleging an 

access-to-the-courts violation must show (1) actual injury; and (2) a non-frivolous, 

arguable underlying claim. Barbour v. Haley, 471 F.3d 1222, 1226 (11th Cir. 

2006). Examples of actual injury include missing filing deadlines or being 

prevented from presenting claims. Wilson v. Blankenship, 163 F.3d 1284, 1290 

n.10 (11th Cir. 1998).

A prosecutor’s actions “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the 

criminal process” are protected by absolute immunity. Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 

478, 492 (1991) (quotation omitted). This immunity extends to the post-sentencing 

conduct of a prosecutor. Hart v. Hodges, 587 F.3d 1288, 1296 (11th Cir. 2009). 

Thus, a prosecutor has absolute immunity for presentation of evidence at postsentencing habeas corpus proceedings. Id.

USCA11 Case: 14-13810 Date Filed: 07/10/2015 Page: 3 of 6
4

Generally, when a more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim, a 

district court should give a pro se plaintiff at least one chance to amend the 

complaint before the court dismisses the action. Bank v. Pitt, 928 F.2d 1108, 1112 

(11th Cir. 1991), overruled in part by Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp., 

314 F.3d 541, 542 & n.1 (11th Cir. 2002) (en banc). See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. 

However, a district court need not allow amendment if the amended complaint 

would still be subject to dismissal. Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th 

Cir. 2007). Moreover, pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than 

those drafted by lawyers and are liberally construed by this Court. Alba v. 

Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). We may affirm on any basis 

supported by the record, regardless of whether the district court decided the case 

on that basis. Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2001). 

Here, Jenkins failed to state a claim that assistant attorney general Bikoff, in 

objecting to his motion for a continuance, caused him an actual injury in his state 

habeas corpus proceeding. Notably, Jenkins did not indicate how Bikoff’s 

objection to his receiving free transcripts injured his habeas petition. See Barbour, 

471 F.3d at 1226. He did not allege that the lack of transcripts rendered him 

unable to raise his claims before the state court or that he missed any deadlines. 

See Wilson, 163 F.3d at 1290 n.10. Rather, Jenkins alleged that he received the 

USCA11 Case: 14-13810 Date Filed: 07/10/2015 Page: 4 of 6
5

transcripts several months later, and that he had the transcripts by the time of the 

second state habeas evidentiary hearing. 

In any event, assistant attorney general Bikoff is entitled to absolute 

immunity. A district court may dismiss a civil action from a prisoner against a 

governmental employee if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2). Bikoff’s alleged conduct 

occurred during a habeas corpus hearing, a judicial phase, and thus is protected by 

absolute immunity. Burns, 500 U.S. at 492. We affirm the court’s dismissal of 

Jenkins’s claim against assistant attorney general Bikoff.

While Jenkins also did not sufficiently allege that he suffered an actual 

injury due to Walker’s alleged falsification of the transcripts, we vacate and 

remand to give Jenkins an opportunity to amend his complaint. See Bank, 928 

F.2d at 1112. As the record shows, his complaint noted what was missing or 

altered in the transcripts, but did not indicate how the alterations or deletions 

injured his state habeas petition. However, the state court did not issue its habeas 

opinion until after Jenkins filed his § 1983 complaint, and a few weeks before the 

district court’s order dismissing the complaint.1 As a result, Jenkins may be able to 

state a claim by referencing the state court’s habeas opinion, in which the state 

 1 Generally, we do not consider evidence attached to an appellant’s brief for the first time on 

appeal. S & Davis Int’l, Inc. v. The Republic of Yemen, 218 F.3d 1292, 1299 n.5 (11th Cir. 

2000). But we may take judicial notice of another court’s order for the limited purpose of 

recognizing the “judicial act” that the order represents. United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 

1553 (11th Cir. 1994).

USCA11 Case: 14-13810 Date Filed: 07/10/2015 Page: 5 of 6
6

court denied Jenkins’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and by showing 

injury from, for example, the state court’s reliance on an allegedly altered 

transcript. See Griffin, 351 U.S. at 20. Moreover, unlike assistant attorney general 

Bikoff, court reporter Walker is not entitled to absolute immunity, and thus 

amendment is not futile. Cockrell, 510 F.3d at 1310. Accordingly, we vacate the 

court’s dismissal of Jenkins’s complaint against court reporter Walker, and remand 

in order to give Jenkins an opportunity to amend his complaint. 

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. 

USCA11 Case: 14-13810 Date Filed: 07/10/2015 Page: 6 of 6