Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JONATHAN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00080-MP-GRJ

ALACHUA COUNTY, et al

Defendants.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff brings this cause pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging that unnamed

officers at the Alachua County Jail took his envelopes and he has been unable to

access the Court. (Doc. 1). This matter has been pending since May 3, 2010, and

despite repeated instruction about the IFP process and several extensions of time to

complete this process (Docs. 4, 9, 14, 16), Plaintiff has still failed to provide the

necessary information for the Court to determine his IFP status and to assess an initial

partial filing fee. Nonetheless, Plaintiff has responded to the Court’s show cause order

to request yet another Prisoner Consent Form, which he will “attempt” to get completed. 

(Docs. 19 and 20). The Court processes hundreds of prisoner complaints a year and

this process is not complicated, the correctional institutions and jails are familiar with it,

and these facilities provide a grievance mechanism available to Plaintiff and any other

inmate to resolve this precise type of difficulty, i.e. assistance in obtaining forms to

abide by court deadlines. 

Given the inordinate delay in obtaining the financial information, the Court has

decided to review the complaint and finds for the following reasons that the case should
Page 2 of 4

be dismissed. 

Plaintiff is suing the jail and the sheriff for $300,000.00 because unidentified jail

officials took legal envelopes from him which he contends has prevented him from

pursuing unspecified legal matters. From the grievances attached to the complaint,

Plaintiff wanted to file letters to several judges, the Clerk’s Office in Duval and Alachua

County, and a Probation Office. 

To state a claim for denial of access to the courts, Plaintiff must show that the

failure of the defendants to provide him envelopes (or other paper materials) impeded

his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 116

S. Ct. 2174, 2180, 135 L. Ed. 2d 606 (1996). 

In Lewis, the Court announced the following three-part test for determining

whether a denial of access to the courts has, in fact, caused actual injury under the

Constitution:

1. The action must involve an attack to the prisoner's sentence, directly or

collaterally, or challenge the conditions of his confinement.

2. The prisoner must show the claim to which he was impeded was not frivolous.

3. The conduct complained of must have impeded the inmate's capability to file

the non-frivolous action challenging his sentence or the conditions of his

confinement.

Id. at 1281-83. 

The legal claim must be an appeal from a conviction for which the inmate was

incarcerated, a habeas petition, or a civil rights action.” Bass v. Singletary, 143 F.3d

1442, 1445 (11th Cir. 1998), citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 352-57, 116 S. Ct. at 2181-82.

When a prisoner has not alleged, much less shown, an actual injury his claim must fail. 

Case No: 1:10-cv-00080-MP -GRJ
Page 3 of 4

Nichols v. Head, No. 5:10cv-71(HL), 2010 WL 1224091 (M.D. Ga. March 22, 2010). 

See also Dorsey v. White, No. 2:05cv565-MHT, 2007 WL 2480517 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 27,

2007) (failure to allege any specific facts showing prejudice to pending or contemplated

appeal, habeas action or non-frivolous civil rights action does not establish requisite

showing of actual prejudice); Tucker v. Powell, No. 7:09-cv-67 (WLS), 2009 WL

3416465 (M.D. Ga. July 8, 2009) (conclusory allegation of prejudice without more

specific showing of negative impact on particular legal action does not state a claim).

Letters to judges, clerks and probation officers are not the type of legal access

protected by the Constitution and any alleged denial of envelopes to send such material

fails to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983. 

A court may dismiss a case proceeding in forma pauperis if the complaint fails to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court is

required to dismiss a complaint at any time if it is determined to be frivolous. 28 U.S.C.

§1915(e)(2)(B)(I). Typically, a court should serve the complaint and have benefit of the

defendant’s response before making such a determination, but there are compelling

reasons for immediately dismissing frivolous suits by prisoners because they unduly

burden the courts, obscure meritorious claims, and require innocent parties to expend

significant resources in their defense. Williams v. Secretary for the Department of

Corrections, 131 Fed. Appx. 682, 686 (11 Cir. 2005). Dismissal prior to service is also th

appropriate when the Court determines from the face of the complaint that the factual

allegations are clearly baseless or that the legal theories are indisputably meritless. 

Williams, supra; Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11 Cir. 1993). th

Case No: 1:10-cv-00080-MP -GRJ
Page 4 of 4

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED: 

That the complaint be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for relief and as

frivolous.

At Gainesville, Florida, this 9 day of November 2010. th

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), a party may file specific, written objections to

the proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served with a

copy of this report and recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s

objections within 14 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 No: 1:10-cv-00080-MP -GRJ