Rosato v. Dixon

M.D. Florida

Rosato v. Dixon

DecidedMarch 18, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-00741

StatusUnknown

This text of Rosato v. Dixon (Rosato v. Dixon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rosato v. Dixon, (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

DOMINIC ANTHONY ROSATO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:24-cv-741-SPC-NPM

LEE DIXON, JON CARNER, DONALD SAWYER and DOTTIE RIDDLE,

Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Dominic Anthony Rosato’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 25). Rosato is an involuntarily committed resident of the Florida Civil Commitment Center (FCCC), and he sues four FCCC officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Rosato is litigating this action in forma pauperis, so the Court must review the Amended Complaint sua sponte to determine whether it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary damages against a party who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant deprived him of a right secured under the Constitution or federal law, and (2) the deprivation occurred under color of state law. Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Arrington v. Cobb Cnty., 139 F.3d 865, 872 (11th Cir. 1998)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege and establish an affirmative causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the constitutional deprivation. Marsh v. Butler Cnty., Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1059 (11th Cir. 2001). The crux of this action is Rosato’s claim that defendants Dixon, Carner, and Sawyer have denied Rosato an opportunity to freely practice his wiccan faith. In the Amended Complaint, Rosato added a claim that Dottie Riddle erroneously denied a grievance based on noncompliance with the FCCC’s policies. Rosato does not have a constitutional right to a grievance procedure, so an alleged defect in the grievance procedure did not violate his constitutional rights. See Allen v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 578 F. App’x 836, 839 (11th Cir. 2014). Thus, Rosato has not stated a claim against Riddle. Accordingly, Rosato’s claim against Riddle is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate Riddle as a party to this

case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on March 18, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

DOMINIC ANTHONY ROSATO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:24-cv-741-SPC-NPM

LEE DIXON, JON CARNER, DONALD SAWYER and DOTTIE RIDDLE,

Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Dominic Anthony Rosato’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 25). Rosato is an involuntarily committed resident of the Florida Civil Commitment Center (FCCC), and he sues four FCCC officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Rosato is litigating this action in forma pauperis, so the Court must review the Amended Complaint sua sponte to determine whether it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary damages against a party who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant deprived him of a right secured under the Constitution or federal law, and (2) the deprivation occurred under color of state law. Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Arrington v. Cobb Cnty., 139 F.3d 865, 872 (11th Cir. 1998)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege and establish an affirmative causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the constitutional deprivation. Marsh v. Butler Cnty., Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1059 (11th Cir. 2001). The crux of this action is Rosato’s claim that defendants Dixon, Carner, and Sawyer have denied Rosato an opportunity to freely practice his wiccan faith. In the Amended Complaint, Rosato added a claim that Dottie Riddle erroneously denied a grievance based on noncompliance with the FCCC’s policies. Rosato does not have a constitutional right to a grievance procedure, so an alleged defect in the grievance procedure did not violate his constitutional rights. See Allen v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 578 F. App’x 836, 839 (11th Cir. 2014). Thus, Rosato has not stated a claim against Riddle. Accordingly, Rosato’s claim against Riddle is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate Riddle as a party to this

case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on March 18, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rosato v. Dixon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosato-v-dixon-flmd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack