Alba v. Pinellas County Jail

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

JOSEPH ALBA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:22-cv-2675-WFJ-AAS JUDGE ANDREWS, et al., Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Joseph Alba’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 2). The Court has undertaken a preliminary screening of the Amended Complaint in accord with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. After doing so, the Court has determined the Amended Complaint must be dismissed. Like the initial complaint, the Amended Complaint is rambling and essentially incomprehensible. And it violates Rule 8’s “short and plain statement” requirement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (providing that a complaint “shall contain . . . a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”). Additionally, Mr. Alba appears to seek damages from a state court judge for acts taken in his judicial capacity and a state attorney for acts taken as an advocate for the State. Defendants have absolute immunity from damages in these circumstances. See Maps v. Miami Dade State Att’y, 693 F. App’x 784, 785 (11th Cir. 2017) (“The defense of absolute immunity extends both to judges and prosecutors.”). Accordingly, Mr. Alba’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED,

without prejudice to his filing of a new complaint, in a new case, with a new case number. The Clerk must enter judgment against Mr. Alba and close this case. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on March 22, 2023. /s/ William F. Jung WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COPIES FURNISHED TO: Plaintiff, pro se