Joseph Clarke v. Kimberly M. Esmond Adams

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: August 21, 2023
• Docket: 22-14330
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit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