Page 1 of 5

 IN T H E U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RAY CHRIS MOBLEY,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:11cv266/WS/CJK

SANTA ROSA COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the Court upon plaintiff’s civil rights complaintfiled under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. 

Upon review of the complaint, the Court concludes that this case should be dismissed

because plaintiff is barred from recovering the relief he seeks. 

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff was an inmate of the Putnam County Jail in Eatonton, Georgia at the

time he initiated this action on May 20, 2011. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff has since been

released. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff’s complaint names three defendants, all members of the

Santa Rosa County Sheriff’s Office: Lieutenant Cottrell, Captain Campbell and

Lieutenant Cotton. Plaintiff alleges that on October 20, 2007, while confined in the

SantaRosa County Jail, another officer (SantaRosaCounty Sheriff’s DeputyCareem

Hamilton) assaulted plaintiff. Plaintiff is suing Deputy Hamilton for the assault in a

Case 3:11-cv-00266-WS-CJK Document 11 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5

separate case, see Mobley v. Hamilton, Case No. 3:11cv268/LC/CJK. In the present

action, plaintiff sues defendants Cottrell, Campbell and Cotton on claims of

conspiracy, “obstruct[ing] justice,” and violating plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

rights, alleging that the defendants conspired with Hamilton to “cover up” Hamilton’s

assault by filing false criminal charges against plaintiff and by concealing an

exculpatory video recording ofthe incident. Plaintiff alleges that the criminal charges

against him were ultimately dismissed. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6(c)). As relief, plaintiffseeks

“$500,000 dollars in damages and 2 million dollars in punitive damages for physical

and mental torture, pain and suffering., intentional infliction of emotional distress,

permanent back injury.” (Id., p. 7). Plaintiff also requests that criminal charges be

filed against the defendants. (Id.). 

DISCUSSION

Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court may dismiss the

case if satisfied that the action is “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim

on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant

who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court must read

plaintiff’s pro se allegations in a liberal fashion. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92

S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972). Dismissals for failure to state a claim are

governed by the same standard as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mitchell

v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1485 (11 Cir. 1997). In determining whether the

th

complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court accepts all

factual allegations in the complaint as true and evaluates all reasonable inferences

derived from those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hunnings v.

Texaco, Inc., 29 F.3d 1480, 1483 (11 Cir. 1994). The complaint may be dismissed

th

Case No: 3:11cv266/WS/CJK

Case 3:11-cv-00266-WS-CJK Document 11 Filed 02/16/12 Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5

if the facts as pleaded do not state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. See

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1968-69, 1974, 167 L. Ed.

2d 929 (2007) (retiring the negatively-glossed “no set of facts” language previously

used to describe the motion to dismiss standard and determining that because

plaintiffs had “not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible,

their complaint must be dismissed” for failure to state a claim). A complaint is also

subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim when its allegations, on their face,

show that an affirmative defense bars recovery on the claim. Marsh v. Butler Cnty.,

Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1022 (11 Cir. 2001); see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, th

215, 127 S. Ct. 910, 920-21, 166 L. Ed. 2d 798 (2007) (reiterating that principle).

Taking the allegations of the complaint astrue and construing them in the light

most favorable to plaintiff, they show that plaintiff’s claims are barred by 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(e). The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) 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). The Eleventh Circuit has

concluded that “the phrase ‘Federal civil action’ means all federal claims, including

constitutional claims.” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 532 (11 Cir. 2002). This

th

action, brought by plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is a “Federal civil action” under

this definition. It is evident from the face of the pleadings that plaintiff was a

prisoner at the time he filed this action, and that the harm complained of occurred

while plaintiff was in custody. Plaintiff’s damages claims, which cannot be liberally

construed as requesting nominal damages, are based on the emotional distress

plaintiff suffered as a result of the defendants’ conspiracy and obstruction of justice. 

Case No: 3:11cv266/WS/CJK

Case 3:11-cv-00266-WS-CJK Document 11 Filed 02/16/12 Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5

The complaint identifies no physical injury arising from Cottrell, Campbell and

Cotton’s alleged conduct. Although plaintiff claims he suffered a back injury as a

result of Deputy Hamilton’s assault, plaintiff is not litigating that claim here. That

claimisthe subject of plaintiff’s lawsuit in Mobley v. Hamilton, Case No. 3:11cv268. 

As plaintiff fails to allege any physical injury arising from the conduct of the

defendants at issue here, plaintiff is prohibited under the PLRA from bringing his

damages claims. Harris v. Garner, 190 F.3d 1279, 1287-88 (11 Cir. 1999)

th

(affirming district court’s dismissal of claims for compensatory and punitive damages

as barred by § 1997e(e)), reh’g en banc granted and opinion vacated, 197 F.3d 1059

(11 Cir. 1999), opinion reinstated in relevant part, 216 F.3d 970 (11 Cir. 2000); th th

see also Al-Amin v. Smith, 637 F.3d 1192 (11 Cir. 2011) (holding that “the overall

th

tenor of Harris and its progeny, when taken together, unmistakably supports” the

conclusion that § 1997e(e) applies to constitutional claims and precludesthe recovery

of compensatory and punitive damages in the absence of the requisite physical

injury). 

Plaintiff is also precluded from recovering the injunctive relief he seeks (the

filing of criminal charges against the defendants). As the Supreme Court explained

in Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 93 S. Ct. 1146, 35 L. Ed. 2d 536 (1973),

“a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or

nonprosecution of another.” Id. at 619, 93 S. Ct. at 1149. The absence of this right,

according to the Court, stems from the “special status of criminal prosecutions in our

system,” which rejects a “direct nexus between the vindication of [a victim’s]interest

and the enforcement of . . . criminal laws.” Id.; see, e.g., Williams v. Univ. of Ala.

Case No: 3:11cv266/WS/CJK

Case 3:11-cv-00266-WS-CJK Document 11 Filed 02/16/12 Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5

Hosp. at Birmingham, 353 F. App’x 397, 398 (11 Cir. 2009) (“The government, not

th

private citizens, prosecutes crimes.”). 

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.

2. That the Clerk be directed to close the file.

At Pensacola, Florida this 16th day of February, 2012.

/s/Charles J. Kahn, Jr.

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy hereof. Any different deadline that may

appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only, and does not

control. A copy of any objections shall be served upon any other parties. Failure to

object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. §

636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11 Cir. 1988). th

Case No: 3:11cv266/WS/CJK

Case 3:11-cv-00266-WS-CJK Document 11 Filed 02/16/12 Page 5 of 5