FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T APRI L 16, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 54 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 3 :1 1- cv -0 07 59 -HW M-J RK

CARL MARI ON W ELLS,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us

ATTORNEY G ENERAL, STAT E OF FLORIDA,

Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 16 , 20 12 )

Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d P RYOR, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.
PER CURI AM:Carl Mar io n W el ls , a st at e pr is on er pr oc eed in g pr o se , ap pe al s th e di st ric t

co ur t ’s d i s mi s sa l of hi s co m pl ai nt un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 wit ho ut pr ejud ic e fo r

fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m , pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 19 15 A(b )(1 ). In hi s co m pl ai nt , W el ls

ch al le ng ed th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of th e st at e st at ut es un d e r w h i c h he was co nv ic te d

an d se n t en ced

. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d W el ls ’s co m pl ai nt be cau se it so ug ht

ha be as rel ie f an d be cau se it was a se co nd or su cces si ve 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 pe ti ti on , as

W el ls ha d un su cces sf

ul ly so ug ht ha be as rel ie f in f ed eral di st ric t co ur t be fo re. On

ap pe al , W el ls arg ue s th at : (1 ) th ere was no ba si s fo r th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n

th at he so ug ht ha be as rel ie f in hi s pr es en t co m pl ai nt be ca u s e h e w a s no t su in g th e

st at e of Fl or id a an d was no t ch al le ng in g hi s co nv ic ti on or se nt en ce, bu t in st ead was

ch al le ng in g th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of sp eci fic Fl or id a st at ut es ; (2 ) he was no t al lo wed

ad eq ua te t i m e to arg ue hi s cl ai m s be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th em , (3 ) th e

co ur t sh ou ld ha ve he ld an ev id en ti ary he ari ng wit h res pe ct to hi s cl ai m s, an d (4 ) th e

co ur t de ni ed hi m du e pr oc es s whe n it ci te d cas es in it s or de r th at W el ls di d no t ha ve

acce ss to . After t ho ro ug h re vi ew, we affi rm

. 1

Und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 19 15 A, th e co ur t s ha ll de te rm in e “ as so on as pr act ic ab le ”

whe th er a pr is o n e r ’s co m pl ai nt th at se ek s red res s fro m a go ve rn m en t of fic ia l “ is

Fur ther, be cause Wells's motion has no bear ing on the resolution of the instant appe al, 1 his request to have the Flor ida Depa rtment of Corre ctions return his six active c ase f iles is DENI ED.

2fri vo lo us , m al ic io us , or fai ls to st at e a cl ai m up on whi ch rel ie f m ay be gr an te d.” 28

U.S.C. § 19 15 A(a), (b )(1 ). W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s su a sp on te di sm is sa l

of a pr is on er’s co m

pl ai nt un de r 28 U.S.C. § 19 15 A(b )(1 ). Leal v. Ga. Dep ’t of Co rr.,

25 4 F.3 d 12 76 , 12 78 -7 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ). W e rev ie w d e n o v o w he th er th e di st ric t

co ur t pr op erl y ex erci se d jur i s di ct io n ov er a cl ai m

. W il li am s v. Ch at m an , 51 0 F.3 d

12 90 , 12 93 (1 1t h Cir. 20 07 ). “ Pro se p le ad in gs are hel d to a le ss st rin ge nt st an da rd

th an pl ead in gs dr aft ed by at to rn ey s an d wil l, th eref or e, be li be ral ly co ns tru ed .”
Hug he s v . Lot t, 3 50 F.3d 11 57 , 11 60 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.
A pr is on er co nv ic te d an d se nt en ced un de r st at e la w m ay se ek fed eral rel ie f in

two pr im ary way s: (1 ) a pe ti ti on fo r ha be as co rp us , 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 , or (2 ) a

co m pl ai nt un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

. Hut ch ers on v. Ri le y , 46 8 F.3 d 75 0, 75 4 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 06 ). The se two av en ue s of rel ie f are m ut ua ll y ex cl us iv e. If a cl ai m can be rai se d

in a fed eral ha be as pe ti ti on , th at sa m e cl ai m can no t be rai se d in a § 19 83 ci vi l rig ht s

co m pl ai nt

. Id

. The li ne of de m arca ti on be twee n a § 19 83 cl ai m an d a § 22 54 ha be as

cl ai m is ba se d on ho w t h e c l a i m r e la te s to a pr is on er’s co nv ic ti on or se nt en ce. Id

.

“ [H]abea s co rp us is th e ex cl us iv e rem ed y fo r a st at e pr is on er who ch al le ng es th e fact

or du rat io n of his co nf

in em en t an d s eek s i m

m ed ia te or s pe ed ie r rel eas e.” Abe ll a v.

Ru bi no , 63 F.3 d 10 63 , 10 66 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 95 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Thu s, de cl arat or y

or in jun ct iv e rel ie f cl ai m s th at ch al le ng e th e va li di ty of th e pr is on er’s co nv ic ti on or

3se nt en ce an d se ek rel eas e are c o g n i z a b l e on ly th ro ug h a § 22 54 pe ti ti on , an d no t

un de r § 1 98 3. Id

.
If th e di st r i c t co ur t de te rm in es th at a § 19 83 cl ai m do es ch al le ng e th e

l a w f u ln es s of th e pr is on er’s co nv ic ti on or se nt en ce, th en th e co ur t m us t tre at th e

pr is on er’s cl ai m as th ou gh rai se d un de r § 22 54 , an d it m us t ap pl y th e Ant i-t erro ris m

an d Effect iv e Deat h Pen al ty Act’s (“ AEDPA”) pr oc ed ur al an d ex ha us ti on

req ui rem en ts to th e cl ai m

. Hut ch ers on , 46 8 F.3 d at 75 4. W he re th e co m pl ai nt ,

co ns tru ed as th ou gh br ou gh t un d e r § 22 54 , is a se co nd or su cces si ve pe ti ti on fo r a

writ of ha be as co rp us , th e di st ric t co ur t m us t di sm is s th e co mp la in t fo r la ck of
juri sd ic ti on un le ss th e pr is on er ha s ob ta in ed an or de r au th or iz in g th e di st ric t co ur t to

c o n s i d e r it

. 28 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b )(3 )(A); se e Hut ch ers on , 46 8 F.3 d at 75 5 (h ol di ng

th at , whe re a § 19 83 act io n qu al ifi es as a se co nd or su cces si ve § 22 54 pe ti ti on , it m us t

co m pl y wit h th e A ED P A ’s req ui rem en ts fo r su ch pe ti ti on s, an d de te rm in in g th at a

pr is on er’s pe ti ti on fai le d to sa ti sf y th e req ui rem en ts un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b )); se e

al so W il li am s v. Ch at m an , 51 0 F.3 d 12 90 , 12 95 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ) ( no ti ng th at §

22 44 (b )’s pr ov is io ns are juri sd ic ti on al in th e co nt ex t of ap pl y in g th e pr ov is io ns to a

Fed .R.Ci v.P . 60 (b ) m ot io n c on st ru ed as a ha be as pe ti ti on ).

In th is cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in di sm is s in g W el ls ’s cl ai m s

ch al le ng in g th e Fl or id a st at ut es un de r whi ch he was co nv ic te d an d se nt en ced be cau se

4th e cl ai m s effe ct iv el y were a ch al le ng e to th e va li di ty of hi s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce

an d were no t co gn iz ab le un de r § 19 83

. Abe ll a , 63 F.3 d at 10 66

. Fu rth er, be cau se

W el ls ha d pr ev io us ly s ou gh t ha be as rel ie f, th is act io n, i f co ns tru ed as a pe ti ti on fo r

ha be as rel ie f, wou ld be a se co nd or su cces si ve pe ti ti on

. Si nc e W el ls ha s no t ob ta in ed

an or de r fro m us au th or iz in g th e di st ric t co ur t to co ns id er W el ls ’s ha be as cl ai m s, th e

di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y de te rm in ed th at it was wit ho ut juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er W el ls ’s

co m pl ai nt

. See W il li am s, 51 0 F.3 d at 12 95

. Thu s, th e di st ric t c o ur t di d no t err in 2

di sm is si ng W el ls ’s com

pl ai nt

. 3

W el ls a l so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t de pr iv ed hi m of du e pr oc es s by no t

al lo win g hi m ad eq ua te ti m e to arg ue hi s cl ai m s an d as se rts th at th e co ur t im pr op erl y

di sm is se d hi s co m

pl ai nt wit ho ut ho ld in g an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. Howev er, pu rs ua nt

to 28 U.S.C. § 19 15 A(a) and (b )(1 ), th e co ur t was wit hi n i ts au th or it y to su a sp on te

Although the re is a possibility that Wells’s 1992 petiti on was dismissed without 2 prejudice , there is no such indication on the docke t sheet re g arding his prior habe as ca se. Howeve r, Wells has not alleg ed any fac ts or made a

ny arg uments in his mot ion to reconsider or in his appellate brie f conte sting the district c ourt’s dete rmination that his petition i s a sec ond or

succe ssive petition.

To the extent W ells is seeking only prospec tive relief

by having the district court de clar e 3 the cha lleng ed statutes unconstitutional, it is unclear how Wells would have sta nding. Standing for Ar ticle I I I purposes re quires a pla intiff to provide evide nce of an injury in fac t. Derme r v. Miami-Dade Cnty ., 599 F.3d 1217, 1220 ( 11th Cir. 2010). I n order to challeng e the constitutionalit y

of a c riminal statute, a plaintiff must demonstrate “an a ctual and w ell-founde d fea r that the law will be enfor ced a g ainst him.” I d. (quotation and a lteration omitted). The only plausible injury

rela ted to the constitutionality of the c halleng ed statutes is with respe ct to Wells’s curre nt confineme nt, which, as discussed a bove, he c annot cha lleng e throug h § 1983.

5di sm is s W el ls ’s a m en de d c om pl ai nt “ as so on as p ract ic ab le aft er d oc ke ti ng ” o n t he

ba si s of hi s co m

pl ai nt an d w i t h o u t th e co ns id erat io n of ad di ti on al arg um en ts

. See

Van de rb erg v. Don al ds on , 25 9 F.3 d 13 21 , 1 3 2 4 ( 1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ) (h ol di ng th at du e

pr oc es s do es no t al way s req ui re no ti ce an d th e op po rt u n i t y t o be he ard be fo re

d i s mi s sa l, an d up ho ld in g a co ur t’s su a sp on te di sm is sa l un de r 28 U.S.C

. §

19 15 (e)( 2) (B)( ii ) fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m ). Mo reo ve r, th e di st ric t co ur t’s rel ia nc e

on un pu bl is he d cas es in it s or de r di sm is si ng hi s cas e di d no t de pr iv e W el ls of acce ss

to th e co ur ts or of an y du e pr oc es s rig ht be cau se th e co ur t di d no th in g to pr ev en t hi m

fro m br in gi ng hi s § 198 3 act io n. See Cun ni ng ha m , 59 2 F.3d 12 73 -7 4 (ho ld in g th at

th e do ct rin e of acce ss to th e co ur ts do es no t im po se a du ty to do so m et hi ng to al lo w

a pr is on er to li ti ga te effe ct iv e l y or to “ he lp bo ls te r [th e pr is on er’s] ch an ces of

su cces s” in co ur t); Ban k of Ja ck so n Cn ty. v. Ch erry, 98 0 F.2 d 13 62 , 13 66 (1 1t h Ci r.

19 93 ) (h ol di ng th at , fo r pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s rig ht s to be vi ol at ed , a pl ai nt iff m us t

es ta bl is h a de pr iv at io n of a pr ot ect ed in te res t in li f e , l ib ert y , or pr op ert y ).

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.
AFFIRMED.

6