Court Opinion

ID: 9564476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:01:24.855518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:27.971429
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14330   Document: 20-1    Date Filed: 08/21/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-14330
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       JOSEPH ALEXANDER CLARKE,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       KIMBERLY M. ESMOND ADAMS,
       FANI T. WILLIS,
       CATHELENE TINA ROBINSON,
       CHRIS CARR,

                                               Defendants-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 22-14330      Document: 20-1       Date Filed: 08/21/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  22-14330

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-04408-LMM
                           ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ABUDU and ANDERSON,
       Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Joseph Clarke, a Georgia prisoner, appeals pro se the dismis-
       sal of his complaint against various state and court officials.
       42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.
               The district court did not abuse its discretion when it sua
       sponte dismissed Clarke’s complaint, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Miller v.
       Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008). Insofar as the com-
       plaint challenges his incarceration with its references to the “com-
       mercial charges” against him and the “confinement of [his] body
       still being held as collateral,” the district court correctly concluded
       that this challenge was barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
       (1994), because requiring the officials to accept his “unrebutted
       commercial affidavit of truth” would necessarily imply the invalid-
       ity of his convictions. And the district court correctly determined
       that the complaint was otherwise frivolous because Clarke’s alle-
       gations, which are “typical of those often used by so-called ‘sover-
       eign citizens,’” lack “an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Mil-
       ler, 541 F.3d at 1100.
USCA11 Case: 22-14330   Document: 20-1    Date Filed: 08/21/2023   Page: 3 of 3

       22-14330            Opinion of the Court                     3

             We AFFIRM the dismissal of Clarke’s complaint.