Jailhouse Constitutional Challenge To Florida One-Party Consent Telephone Recording
Jailhouse Constitutional Challenge To Florida One-Party Consent Telephone Recording
Plaintiff,
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Defendant.
________________________________
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, a pre-trial detainee at the Marion County Jail proceeding pro se, initiated
this action by filing a civil rights complaint. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff complains that the statute
The case is currently before the Court for screening pursuant to the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The PLRA requires the Court to dismiss a case if the Court
determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court must liberally construe a pro se Plaintiff’s
allegations. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); see also Miller v. Stanmore, 636 F. 2d
This Court must abstain from passing on Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to the Younger
v. Harris abstention doctrine. 401 U.S. 37 (1971). “Under Younger v. Harris and its
1
Case 5:21-cv-00416-PGB-PRL Document 23 Filed 04/04/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 311
progeny, federal district courts must refrain from enjoining pending state court
proceedings except under special circumstances.” Old Republic Union Ins. Co. v. Tillis
Trucking Co., Inc., 124 F.3d 1258, 1261 (11th Cir. 1997). “The policy of equitable restraint
prosecution provides the accused a fair and sufficient opportunity for vindication of
federal constitutional rights.” Hughes v. Att’y Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258, 1264 n. 7 (11th
Cir. 2004).
The exceptions to Younger are very narrow and apply only if there is evidence of
state proceedings motivated by bad faith, irreparable injury would occur, or there is no
adequate alternative state forum where the plaintiff’s constitutional issues can be raised.
Hughes v. Att’y Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 2004). In his most recent filing,
received by the Court on March 10, 2022, Plaintiff has communicated that his state
criminal case is ongoing. (Doc. 22.) None of the Younger exceptions apply in the present
case.
For the reasons stated herein, the complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without
prejudice. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly, terminate any pending
IT IS SO ORDERED.