Jeffrey W. Holton v. Florida Department of Revenue, Mary Batt, T. Paul Sessions, Jr.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: January 16, 2026
• Docket: 8:25-cv-01606
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION JEFFREY W. HOLTON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:25-cv-1606-WFJ-LSG

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MARY BATT, T. PAUL SESSIONS, JR.,

Defendants. /

ORDER

Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge Lindsay S. Griffin’s Report and Recommendation that Plaintiff Jeffrey Holton’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 6) be denied, and Plaintiff’s pro se Amended Complaint (Dkt. 10) be dismissed without leave to amend. Dkt. 11. The time for filing objections has passed. When a party makes timely and specific objections to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district judge shall conduct a de novo review of the portions of the record to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Jeffrey S. State Bd. of Educ. of State of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990). After an independent review, the district court may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Macort v. Prem., Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783–84 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir.

1989)). Plaintiff raises several objections to the Report and Recommendation. See Dkt. 12. First, Plaintiff argues the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that Plaintiff has

no First Amendment right to access the requested information he seeks from the Florida Department of Revenue and the State Attorney’s Office. Id. at 3. Second, Plaintiff contends that he sufficiently alleged facts showing either Defendant Sessions or Batt acted under color of state law. Id. at 4. Third, Plaintiff argues that

abstention is not warranted in this case. Id. at 6. Finally, Plaintiff asserts that even if the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation for dismissal is correct, the dismissal of his Amended Complaint should be without prejudice and leave to amend. Id. at 7. The

Court rejects each of Plaintiff’s objections. The Magistrate Judge, in a thorough and well-reasoned analysis, found that Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims fail as a matter of law. As the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, Section 1983 claims require a plaintiff to plead some deprivation of

a federal right, and “[t]here is no First Amendment right of access to public information.” Dkt. 11 at 8–9 (quoting Foto USA, Inc. v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Fla., 141 F.3d 1032, 1035 (11th Cir. 1998) and collecting cases). Therefore, the

Magistrate Judge properly found that “Holton cannot plausibly allege the violation of a federally guaranteed right under the First Amendment to access records possessed or maintained by state entities.” Id. at 9.

Next, the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff alleged no facts show that either Sessions or Batt acted under color of state law is correct. Id. While Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges Defendants required him to pay a fee before accessing

certain public records, there is no evidence that this is an abuse of Defendants’ position given to them by the state. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 50 (1988); Fla. Stat. § 409.2579 (designating as confidential and exempting from disclosure under Section 119.07, Florida Statutes, information gathered from applicants for, or

recipients of, child support services); Fla. Stat. § 119.07(4) (requiring the custodian of public records to furnish a copy of a record “upon payment of the fee prescribed by law” or by that subsection).

Finally, the Court agrees that, even if Plaintiff stated a claim, abstention is warranted in this case. As the Magistrate Judge correctly points out, the documents Plaintiff seeks from Defendants were to be used “in preparation of trial in his state court domestic relations proceedings.” Dkt. 11 at 10. The Eleventh Circuit teaches

that “[t]he federal judiciary has traditionally abstained from deciding cases concerning domestic relations.” Ingram v. Hayes, 866 F.2d 368, 369 (11th Cir. 1988). As such, “federal courts generally dismiss cases involving divorce and

alimony, child custody, visitation[] rights, establishment of paternity, child support, and enforcement of separation or divorce decrees still subject to state court modification.” Id. (citation omitted). In this case, the Magistrate Judge correctly

observed that while Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint “requests no relief directly implicating the marital or parent-child relationship, any order requiring disclosure of information gathered as part of the child support proceeding would necessarily

interfere with the state court’s adjudication of a family law matter.” Dkt. 11 at 11. Therefore, the Court finds that abstention is also warranted. CONCLUSION The Eleventh Circuit is clear that this Court must give a pro se plaintiff, like

Plaintiff Holton, “at least one chance to amend the complaint before the district court dismisses the action with prejudice.” Woldeab v. Dekalb Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 885 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2018). “An exception to this requirement exists, however,

when amending the complaint would be futile, or when the complaint is patently frivolous.” Quire v. Smith, No. 21-10473, 2021 WL 3238806, at *1 (11th Cir. July 30, 2021). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that “[b]ased on the absence of cognizable federal claim under any construction of the facts and the

preference for abstention under Ingram, further amendment would be futile.” Dkt. 11 at 12. Having performed a de novo and independent review of the file, and for the sound reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation, it is hereby

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 11, is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and APPROVED in all respects and made a part of this order.

a. Plaintiff Holton’s objections, Dkt. 12, are OVERRULED. 2. The Court DENIES Plaintiff Holton’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 6. 3. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff Holton’s Amended Complaint with

prejudice. Dkt. 10. 4. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE all pending deadlines and CLOSE this case.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on January 16, 2026.

s/William F. Jung WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Plaintiff, pro se