Chauncey Calhoun v. Sgt. Julian D. Zebranek, et al.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: December 9, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-03344
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

CHAUNCEY CALHOUN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:25-cv-3344-WFJ-AAS

SGT. JULIAN D. ZEBRANEK, et al.,

Defendants. /

ORDER

Chauncey Calhoun, a Florida prisoner, initiated this action by filing a pro se civil- rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (Doc. 1), and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 2). In a separate order, the Court grants Mr. Calhoun leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon review, however, the Court concludes that the complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Mr. Calhoun alleges that on January 26, 2024, he was taking a shower at Avon Park Correctional Institution. (Doc. 1 at 4-5). Sgt. Julian D. Zebranek and Sgt. Lawrence entered the bathroom. (Id. at 5). Sgt. Zebranek “demanded [Mr. Calhoun] exit the shower [and] submit to hand restraints.” (Id.) Mr. Calhoun said, “Sure[,] but can I finish drying myself and put my clothes on[?]” (Id.) Sgt. Zebranek “immediately reiterated” his demand to “submit to hand restraints.” (Id.) At the same time, Sgt. Zebranek pulled out a can of pepper spray and, without “giving [Mr. Calhoun] time to react or respond, proceeded to spray [him] while naked.” (Id.) Based on these allegations, Mr. Calhoun brings excessive force claims against Sgt. Zebranek and Sgt. Lawrence in their official capacities. (Id. at 2-3). As relief, he seeks monetary damages. (Id. at 8).

As currently pled, the complaint is deficient and must be dismissed without prejudice. The named defendants are two employees of the Florida Department of Corrections (“FDOC”)—Sgt. Zebranek and Sgt. Lawrence. (Id. at 2). Mr. Calhoun sues these persons in their official capacities only. (Id.) “Absent waiver or express congressional abrogation (neither of which is present in this case) the Eleventh Amendment doctrine of sovereign immunity bars a § 1983 plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against

individual employees of the [FDOC] . . . in their official capacities.” Hodge v. Dixon, No. 3:23-cv-24738-MCR-ZCB, 2024 WL 4295780, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2024), adopted by 2024 WL 4291502 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2024); see also Lewis v. Charlotte Corr. Inst. Emps., 589 F. App’x 950, 952 (11th Cir. 2014) (“[A] claim for damages against the FDOC officers fails because the state officials sued in their official capacities are immune from

such relief.”). Accordingly, the complaint fails to state a claim for relief. In light of his pro se status, the Court will give Mr. Calhoun an opportunity to amend his complaint. See Woldeab v. Dekalb Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 885 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2018) (“Where a more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim, a plaintiff must be given at least one chance to amend the complaint before the district court dismisses the

action with prejudice.”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Mr. Calhoun’s complaint, (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED without prejudice. a. If Mr. Calhoun wishes to amend, he shall file an amended complaint within TWENTY-ONE DAYS of the date of this order.

b. To amend, Mr. Calhoun should complete a new civil-rights complaint form, titling it “Amended Complaint.” The amended complaint must include all of Mr. Calhoun’s claims and may not refer back to, or incorporate, the complaint. The amended complaint shall supersede the complaint. Malowney v. Fed. Collection Deposit Group, 193 F.3d 1342, 1345 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999).

2. If Mr. Calhoun fails to file an amended complaint by the above deadline, or fails to seek an extension of time to do so, this order dismissing the complaint will become a final judgment. “[A]n order dismissing a complaint with leave to amend within a specified time becomes a final judgment if the time allowed for amendment expires without the plaintiff [amending his

complaint or] seeking an extension. And when the order becomes a final judgment, the district court loses ‘all its prejudgment powers to grant any more extensions’ of time to amend the complaint.” Auto. Alignment & Body Serv., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 953 F.3d 707, 720-71 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Hertz Corp. v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 16 F.3d 1126 (11th

Cir. 1994)). 3. Mr. Calhoun must advise the Court of any change of address. He must entitle the paper “Notice to the Court of Change of Address” and must exclude any motions from the notice. Failure to inform the Court of an address change will result in the dismissal of this case without further notice. 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail to Mr. Calhoun the standard form for pro se prisoner complaints. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 9, 2025.

WILLIAM F. ~“s UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-