[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-12470

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cv-00037-WS-GRJ

WINDSOR E. COOKS, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(April 20, 2015)

Before HULL, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Windsor E. Cooks, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the sua sponte 

Case: 13-12470 Date Filed: 04/20/2015 Page: 1 of 4 
2

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted. In his complaint, Cooks alleged that the Florida Department 

of Corrections (“FDOC”) violated his constitutional rights by keeping him in its 

custody without possessing certain probable cause affidavits that led to his arrest.

1

 

Accordingly, Cooks sought (1) a declaration that the FDOC’s actions violated his 

rights; (2) an injunction directing the FDOC to contact the clerk of the sentencing 

court and state that Cooks would be immediately released from the FDOC’s 

custody; and (3) compensatory and punitive damages. Upon review of the record 

and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.

We review a district court’s decision to dismiss for failure to state a claim 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A de novo, taking the allegations in the complaint as true. 

Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006). In addition, we liberally 

construe Cooks’s pro se pleadings, holding them to a less stringent standard than 

those drafted by an attorney. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 

(11th Cir. 1998).

The Prison Litigation Reform Act, in § 1915A, provides that the district 

court “shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as 

practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks 

 1 In particular, Cooks cites Fla. Stat. § 944.17(5), which provides that the FDOC must 

refuse to accept any individual for imprisonment unless the committing authority furnishes such 

affidavits.

Case: 13-12470 Date Filed: 04/20/2015 Page: 2 of 4 
3

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental 

entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Upon review, the district court must dismiss the 

complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id. “A 

complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken 

as true, show the plaintiff is not entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 

215, 127 S.Ct. 910, 920, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007).

A prisoner is barred from challenging the legality of his conviction or 

confinement in a suit for damages under § 1983 if (1) the action, if successful, 

would demonstrate the invalidity of the underlying conviction or sentence; and (2) 

his conviction or sentence has not been “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by 

executive order, 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 v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2372, 

129 L.E.2d 383 (1994). As the Supreme Court stressed in Wilkinson v. Dotson, 

544 U.S. 74, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005), we must “ensure that state 

prisoners use only habeas corpus (or similar state) remedies when they seek to 

invalidate the duration of their confinement—either directly through an injunction 

compelling speedier release or indirectly through a judicial determination that 

necessarily implies the unlawfulness of the State’s custody.” Id. at 81, 125 S.Ct. at 

1247. 

Case: 13-12470 Date Filed: 04/20/2015 Page: 3 of 4 
4

The district court did not err in dismissing Cooks’s complaint for failure to 

state a claim because his claims are not cognizable under § 1983. In his complaint, 

Cooks challenged the very fact of his physical imprisonment, and for relief, he

sought a determination that he was entitled to immediate release from 

imprisonment as well as damages based on his unconstitutional imprisonment. 

Because Cooks did not assert or demonstrate that his conviction or sentence had 

been invalidated, he could not bring his claims under § 1983, and his sole federal 

remedy was to seek a writ of habeas corpus. See Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81-82, 125 

S.Ct. at 1248; Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. at 2372; Preiser, 411 U.S. 475,

489, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1836, 1841, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). Accordingly, the 

allegations in Cooks’s complaint, liberally construed and taken as true, show that 

he is not entitled to relief.2

 See Jones, 549 U.S. at 215, 127 S.Ct. at 920.

AFFIRMED.

 2 Furthermore, it appears that Fla. Stat. § 944.17(5) does not “confer a liberty interest upon 

a prisoner” or “create a cause of action for prisoners to challenge their detention under a facially 

valid judgment and sentence.” Edward v. Crews, 124 So.3d 422, 424 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013).

Case: 13-12470 Date Filed: 04/20/2015 Page: 4 of 4