Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JAMES LONNIE BAKER, JR,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-00011-RS-AK

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant.

________________________________________/

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Pay the Initial Partial Filing Fee (Doc.11) is

denied as moot. The partial filing fee was paid on May 3, 2010. 

The Court has reviewed the Complaint and finds that the facts as presented fail to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted. Consequently, the Clerk will mail Plaintiff another civil

rights complaint that he must complete. Plaintiff should not file any service copies of the

complaint at this time. 

Plaintiff seeks damages for false imprisonment and complains that his probation was

revoked based on hearsay evidence. Plaintiff should consider dismissing the present lawsuit and

filing a petition for habeas corpus relief since his claims concern the validity of the state court

conviction. A claim for damages will be barred if “establishing the basis for the damages claim

necessarily demonstrate [d] the invalidity of the conviction.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,

114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994). Further, the general rule is that a federal court

does not act as a “super” state supreme court and review the evidentiary determinations of a state
Page 2 of 3

court. Knight v. Dugger, 863 F.2d 705, 726 (11 Cir. 1988); Shaw v. Boney, 695 F.2d 528, 530 th

(11th Cir.1983). Only if a trial court's evidentiary ruling has caused a state criminal proceeding

to be fundamentally unfair is a petitioner entitled to relief. Shaw v. Boney, 695 F.2d at 530;

Dickson v. Wainwright, 683 F.2d 348, 350 (11th Cir.1982); DeBenedictis v. Wainwright, 674

F.2d 841, 843 (11th Cir.1982). Fundamental fairness is violated when the evidence is material in

the sense of a crucial, critical, highly significant factor. Shaw v. Boney, 695 F.2d at 530. These

cases concern habeas relief since that is typically the context in which these claims arise. The

Court has read the papers attached to the complaint and it appears that Plaintiff previously raised

this issue or it was otherwise addressed on a state habeas petition and no fundamental unfairness

was found because other, non-hearsay evidence was used to convict him. Plaintiff has provided

only a few pages from the state court decision, but he should consider that he may need to file for

federal habeas relief rather than civil rights violations. Also, Plaintiff has not named any persons

whom he claims violated his civil rights. Civil rights violations are not committed by

departments or agencies; claims under 1983 must be asserted against persons who are acting on

behalf of the state or its agencies.

Therefore, in amending, Plaintiff should carefully review the foregoing to determine

whether he can present allegations sufficient to state a cause of action under the relevant law. If

Plaintiff is able to file an amended complaint, he must name as Defendants only those persons

who are responsible for the alleged constitutional violations. Plaintiff must place their full names

in the style of the case on the first page of the civil rights complaint form and in the other

appropriate sections of the form. Further, Plaintiff should clearly describe how each named

Defendant is involved in each alleged constitutional violation. In civil rights cases, more than

Case No: 5:10-cv-00011-RS-AK
Page 3 of 3

conclusory and vague allegations are required to state a cause of action. See, e.g., Fullman v.

Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 556-57 (11th Cir. 1984). In presenting his claims, Plaintiff must set

forth each allegation in a separately numbered paragraph, as it is essential that the facts relating

to each Defendant be set out clearly and in detail. 

To amend his complaint, Plaintiff must completely fill out a new civil rights complaint

form, marking it "Amended Complaint." Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint must

contain all of Plaintiff's allegations and should not in any way refer to the original or amended

complaints. An amended complaint completely replaces all previous complaints and all earlier

complaints are disregarded. N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 15.1. Plaintiff should file the amended complaint

in the Court and keep one identical copy for himself. Plaintiff shall not file service copies until

instructed to do so by the court.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion For Extension Of Time (Doc. 11) is denied as moot.

2. The clerk of court shall forward to Plaintiff another Section 1983 form.

3 Plaintiff must respond to this Order by June 1, 2010.

ORDERED on May 12, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 5:10-cv-00011-RS-AK