Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DANNY E. MCDANIEL,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 4:03CV222-SPM/AK

LARRY CAMPBELL, et al,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff brings this cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he

was arrested by the Talladega County Sheriff’s office in Talladega, Alabama, on an

expired detainer. (Doc. 33). He sues the governors of Florida and Alabama, the sheriff

of Talladega County, and several state employees in Florida and Alabama for their

various parts in issuing and serving the illegal detainer, and a private company, Mid

Florida Security Group, whom he alleges picked him up in Alabama and brought him to

Leon County, Florida, even though Plaintiff alleges that he did not waive extradition. 

Case 4:03-cv-00222-SPM-AK Document 34 Filed 02/01/06 Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5

1

 Although this pleading is styled “Second Amended Complaint,” the docket

sheet shows only one amended complaint (doc. 33).

2

 Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act.

No. 4:03cv222-spm/ak

(Doc. 33). Although Plaintiff has added several new parties in the amended complaint,1

as well as additional facts, the gist of his complaint is, again, the illegality of the detainer

upon which he was brought to Florida, which has been litigated on the merits in a

petition under 28 U.S.C. §2241, McDaniel v. Campbell, et al, Case No. 4:03cv205-

RH/WCS, (transferred to this Court on July 7, 2003, from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Case No. 03CV342), and has been raised in

state court in a habeas petition, Case No. 2003CA1458, and other motions, Case No.

R19950181AF001. (See Doc. 33, Exhibits A, G). Indeed, Plaintiff concedes in the

memorandum attached to the amended complaint, that he has litigated “similar merits

as far as IADA,”2 but represents that the present complaint requests relief that he has

not sought previously. The relief sought is damages for emotional distress and punitive

damages. 

The Court finds that the amended complaint (doc. 33) should be dismissed for

failure to state a claim on a number of grounds.

One, Plaintiff has not alleged that he suffered any physical injury from the actions

of the defendants. (Doc. 33, p.9a). Section 1997e(e) provides: "No Federal civil action

may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for

mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical

injury." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Despite the wording of § 1997e(e), that ”[n]o Federal

civil action may be brought,” this circuit has established that the statute limits relief, not

Case 4:03-cv-00222-SPM-AK Document 34 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5

3

 Harris v. Garner, 190 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 1999) was vacated by 197 F.3d

1059, and the Opinion Reinstated in Part on Rehearing by 216 F.3d 970 (11th Cir.

2000), cert. denied 121 S. Ct. 2214 (2001). The parts of the panel opinion relevant to

this legal issue were reinstated. 

No. 4:03cv222-spm/ak

causes of action. If there is no physical injury alleged, then mental or emotional

monetary damages, as well as punitive damages, cannot be recovered. Harris v.

Garner, 216 F.3d 970 (11th Cir. 2000)3, reinstating in part 190 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir.

1999) and Osterback v. Ingram, et al., No. 00-10558, 263 F.3d 169 (11th Cir. 2001)

(Table). 215 F.3d at 1230. 

Further, since the actions of which Plaintiff complains concern an allegedly illegal

arrest and incarceration, the Court also finds that Plaintiff’s claims are foreclosed by

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994). A

claim for damages that is related to a sentence or conviction that has not yet been

reversed or invalidated is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Heck, 114 S. Ct. at

2372. 

Finally, the merits of the underlying claims have been decided. "Under the

doctrine of res judicata, a judgment on the merits in a prior suit bars a second suit

involving the same parties or their privies based on the same cause of action." Sewell

v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 94 F.3d 1514, 1518 (11th Cir. 1996),

citing Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n.5, 99 S. Ct. 645, 649 n.5,

58 L. Ed. 2d 552 (1979).

If the later litigation arises from the same cause of action, then the

judgment bars litigation not only of "every matter which was actually

offered and received to sustain the demand, but also [of] every [claim]

which might have been presented." Baltimore S.S. Co. v. Phillips, 274

U.S. 316, 319, 47 S.Ct. 600, 602, 71 L.Ed. 1069 (1927).

Case 4:03-cv-00222-SPM-AK Document 34 Filed 02/01/06 Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5

No. 4:03cv222-spm/ak

In re Justice Oaks II, Ltd., 898 F.2d 1544, 1550, n. 3 (11th Cir. 1990), cert. denied,

498 U.S. 959 (1990) (emphasis added).

"The principal test for determining whether the causes of action are the same is

whether the primary right and duty are the same in each case. . . . In determining

whether the causes of action are the same, the court must compare the substance of

the actions, not their form." I. A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson National Bank, 793 F.2d 1541,

1549 (11th Cir. 1986). "Claims are part of the same cause of action when they arise out

of the same transaction or series of transactions." In re Justice Oaks II, Ltd., 898 F.2d

at 1551. Although the present case is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the previous

cases were brought under 28 U.S.C. §2241 and 2254, the substance of the actions is

Plaintiff’s assertion that the detainer had expired and his incarceration based on the

detainer was illegal. Plaintiff has varied the parties in the cases and even in the

pleadings filed in the present lawsuit, focusing primarily on the Alabama state actors in

one pleading (doc. 33) and the Florida actors in another. (Doc. 1). However, the sole

complaint running throughout all of the causes of action is Plaintiff’s contention that the

detainer process that resulted in his being extradited from Alabama to Florida violated

his rights. Thus, the Court is of the opinion that the determination of the legality of the

detainer warrant has been litigated and Plaintiff is now precluded from asserting this

claim in this cause of action.

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s second

amended complaint, doc. 33, be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and that the order adopting

Case 4:03-cv-00222-SPM-AK Document 34 Filed 02/01/06 Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5

No. 4:03cv222-spm/ak

this report and recommendation direct the clerk of court to note on the docket that this

cause was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

IN CHAMBERS at Gainesville, Florida, this 1st day of February, 2006.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 10 days after

being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of

review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case 4:03-cv-00222-SPM-AK Document 34 Filed 02/01/06 Page 5 of 5