CARTWRIGHT v. ALACHUA COUNTY FLORIDA et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
KELVIN CARTWRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:25-cv-375-AW-MAF
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Kelvin Cartwright, a pro se Plaintiff, filed this action against the City of
Gainesville, Alachua County, and unnamed “Law Enforcement Officers,
Investigators, and Supervisory Officials.” ECF No. 5. He paid the filing fee. The
operative complaint is the First Amended. Id.
The magistrate judge recommends sua sponte dismissal. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff
has filed objections, ECF Nos. 11, 12, and I have considered the matter de novo.
A district court may sua sponte dismiss a case as frivolous after giving
Plaintiff notice and an opportunity to respond. Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found.,
789 F.3d 1239, 1248 (11th Cir. 2015). Cartwright has had an opportunity to respond.
A case is frivolous if “it is without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Bilal
v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001). The claims here indisputably lack
merit for several reasons. First, as the magistrate judge explains, the claims are not
timely. The statute of limitation for a § 1983 claim turns on the forum state and, for
Case 1:25-cv-00375-AW-MAF Document 17 Filed 06/18/26 Page 1 of 4

2
these claims, the limitations period is four years. Van Poyck v. McCollum, 646 F.3d
865, 867 (11th Cir. 2011). Here, Cartwright sues over misconduct he alleges
happened in the early nineties. He says in his objections that Defendants’ violations
“may involve continuing misconduct or delayed discovery of the injury,” ECF No.
11 at 3, but he does not show how. And his objections reveal neither contention has
merit. He knew of his injury, at the latest, by 1996, when the state court entered its
judgment absolving Cartwright of paternity and support obligations. ECF No. 12 at
7. Plus, as to continuing violations, he points to the continuing “consequences of the
constitutional violations.” Id. at 11 (emphasis added). But there is a difference
between “the present consequence of a one time violation, which does not extend
the limitations period,” and the “continuation of that violation into the present, which
does.” Lovett v. Ray, 327 F.3d 1181, 1183 (11th Cir. 2003). Cartwright may have
the former, but he does not show the latter. Since the claims are clearly time-barred,
they are frivolous and may be dismissed on that basis. Clark v. State of Ga. Pardons
& Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 640 n.2 (11th Cir. 1990) (“The expiration of the statute
of limitations is an affirmative defense the existence of which warrants a dismissal
as frivolous.”).
Second, Cartwright’s claims against unnamed persons cannot succeed.
Fictitious-party pleading is generally not permitted unless a plaintiff can plead facts
“so specific” as to render the fictitious name “surplusage.” Richardson v. Johnson,
Case 1:25-cv-00375-AW-MAF Document 17 Filed 06/18/26 Page 2 of 4

3
598 F.3d 734, 738 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1215-
16 (11th Cir. 1992)). Here, the facts need to be detailed enough to identify a
particular defendant among the City’s many employees. Id. But Cartwright offers no
facts sufficient to identify any law enforcement officer, investigator, or supervisory
official, so the claims against them must be dismissed. Id.
Third, the remaining Defendants are the City and the County, but Cartwright
alleges no facts that could support Monell claims against them. “Section 1983
doesn’t authorize vicarious liability against a municipality.” Smothers v. Childers,
159 F.4th 922, 930 (11th Cir. 2025). So to maintain a claim against the City or
County, Cartwright must identify a government policy, custom, or official municipal
act that caused his injury. Id. (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658,
694 (1978)). In addition to that, he must plausibly allege the City or County acted
“with the requisite degree of culpability.” Id. at 931. But Cartwright does none of
those things. He summarily says the City and County “maintained policies, customs,
and practices exhibiting deliberate indifference,” ECF No. 5 at 6, but alleges no facts
identifying any such policy, custom, or practice, much less that it caused his injury
or reflected the requisite degree of culpability.
Cartwright’s objections are overruled, and I now adopt the report and
recommendation and incorporate it into this order. The clerk will enter a judgment
Case 1:25-cv-00375-AW-MAF Document 17 Filed 06/18/26 Page 3 of 4

4
that says, “Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed without prejudice as frivolous.” The clerk
will then close the file.
SO ORDERED on June 18, 2026.
s/ Allen Winsor
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00375-AW-MAF Document 17 Filed 06/18/26 Page 4 of 4