United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Floreal Remy, Plaintiff,

v.

Public Defender Nixon Caroche and 

others, Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-22781-Civ-Scola

Order Dismissing Case

This matter is before the Court on an independent review of the record. 

Plaintiff Floreal Remy initiated this action on July 7, 2020, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, alleging that various Public Defenders are “State or local officials” who 

violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and 

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) The Plaintiff’s 

complaint alleges that:

[M]y court appointed attorney in which I had no knowledge of started 

making court hearings/proceedings without my knowledge. In 

which from that point on 3 more appointed court attorneys 

proceeded to have more hearings/hold court proceedings without 

my knowledge. I never had any contact with them verbally or 

physically. Which indicates a miscarriage of justice and fraudulent 

acts committed by the above style mentioned attorneys. 

(Id. at 5.) The complaint provides no detail as to the substance of these purported 

hearings, such as their purpose, when or before whom they were held, or how 

they were in any way “fraudulent” or resulted in a “miscarriage of justice.” The 

Plaintiff also claims to have “suffered mental anguish,” “psychological distress,” 

“deprivation of my freedom” and “emotional distress.” (Id. at 8.) Again, the 

complaint does not explain how the superficially described “hearings” and 

“proceedings” caused, e.g., “emotional distress” in violation of the U.S. 

Constitution. Finally, as compensation for the purported wrongdoing, the 

Plaintiff seeks seven million dollars. (Id. at 6.)

As a threshold matter, the Defendants are public defenders and the 

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that public defenders cannot be held 

liable under § 1983 “because they are not state actors for purposes of § 1983.” 

Rolle v. Glenn, 712 F. App'x 897, 899 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 

454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (holding that a public defender does not act under color 

Case 1:20-cv-22781-RNS Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 1 of 2
of state law, as required under § 1983, when he performs a lawyer’s traditional 

function by acting as defense counsel in a criminal proceeding)).) Even absent 

that threshold defect in the complaint, the Court would dismiss this action. 

“[D]istrict courts have the inherent power to sua sponte dismiss frivolous suits 

without giving notice to the parties.” Davis v. Kvalheim, 261 F. App’x 231, 234-

35 (11th Cir. 2008). Here, the complaint is “clearly baseless and without arguable 

merit in fact.” Id. As a result, this case is dismissed under both the Court’s 

inherent authority and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Id.

The Clerk is instructed to close this case and mail a copy of this order to 

the Plaintiff at the address listed below. All pending motions, if any, are denied

as moot.

Done and ordered, in chambers, at Miami, Florida on July 27, 2020.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Copies to:

Floreal Remy

190166484 

Miami-Dade County-PDC 

Pretrial Detention Center 

Inmate Mail/Parcels 

1321 NW 13th Street 

Miami, FL 33125

Case 1:20-cv-22781-RNS Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 2 of 2