PRESSLEY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
CECILIA C. PRESSLEY,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:26cv124-TKW-HTC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER and
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Cecilia Pressley, proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint
against the United States of America, asserting claims based on a 2016 prosecution
for battery in state court. After reviewing the complaint, the undersigned concludes
this action should be DISMISSED without prejudice because it is frivolous. Thus,
the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) will be DENIED as moot.
I. 	Background
In July 2016, Pressley was charged with battery in state court. See Escambia
County Case No. 2016 MM 4084.1 The following month, she pled no contest to the
1 A court may take judicial notice of online state court dockets. See Paez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of
Corr., 947 F.3d 649, 651-52 (11th Cir. 2020).
Case 3:26-cv-00124-TKW-HTC Document 4 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 6

Page 2 of 6
Case No. 3:26cv124-TKW-HTC
charge.2 Nevertheless, in this action Pressley alleges: (1) the state court withheld
evidence that was favorable to her defense and that “should have been presented at
the time of the trial”; and (2) a police report indicates she was not present when the
battery took place.3
Based on the foregoing, Pressley asserts violations of: (1) her due process
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) her fair trial rights under the Sixth
Amendment; and (3) her rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), which
requires prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence to a defendant. As relief, she
seeks damages for her “wrongful incarceration” on the battery charge.
II. 	Discussion
“[A] district court has the inherent power to dismiss an action that is ‘so
patently lacking in merit as to be frivolous.’” Guthrie v. U.S. Gov’t, 618 F. App’x
612, 617 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Jefferson Fourteenth Assocs. v. Wometco de
Puerto Rico, Inc., 695 F.2d 524, 526 & n.3 (11th Cir.1983)); see also Davis v.
Kvalheim, 261 F. App’x 231, 234-35 (11th Cir. 2008) (affirming district courts’
inherent authority to dismiss frivolous claims sua sponte). “A claim is frivolous if
it is without arguable merit either in law or fact.” 	Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346,
2 Under Florida law, Pressley’s no contest plea qualifies as a conviction. See Fla. Stat. § 960.291(3)
(a “conviction” includes a “nolo contendere plea by a defendant, regardless of adjudication of
guilt”).
3 The report indicates the police officer who interviewed the victim unsuccessfully attempted to
contact Pressley. Nothing in the report suggests the officer concluded Pressley was not present at
the time of the battery. Indeed, the officer “determined Pressley committed battery.”
Case 3:26-cv-00124-TKW-HTC Document 4 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 6

Page 3 of 6
Case No. 3:26cv124-TKW-HTC
1349 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993)
(noting “a case is frivolous for section 1915(d) [now 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)]
when it appears the plaintiff has little or no chance of success”) (quotation marks
and citation omitted).
Here, Pressley’s complaint is frivolous for multiple reasons. 	First, the
complaint wholly fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. It contains no allegations
regarding the United States of America—the only named Defendant—and nothing
indicates the federal government had anything to do with Pressley’s prosecution in
state court. 	See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”).
Second, even if Pressley identified the state actors responsible for the conduct
she complains of, her claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
In Heck, the Supreme Court held:
[T]o recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness
would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must
prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct
appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question
by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. §
2254.
Case 3:26-cv-00124-TKW-HTC Document 4 Filed 01/15/26 Page 3 of 6

Page 4 of 6
Case No. 3:26cv124-TKW-HTC
512 	U.S. 	at 	486-87. 	Thus, 	a 	plaintiff 	may 	not 	obtain 	damages 	under
§ 1983 if a judgment in her favor “would necessarily imply the invalidity of [her]
conviction or sentence.” Id. at 487.
Pressley claims she was denied a fair trial because individuals withheld
exculpatory evidence that shows she did not commit the battery. 	These claims
necessarily imply the invalidity of her battery conviction. See id. at 479, 490 (finding
§ 	1983 	action 	alleging 	prosecutors 	and 	investigator 	knowingly 	destroyed
exculpatory evidence was barred because it constituted challenge to legality of still
outstanding conviction); Griffin v. Baltimore Police Dep’t, 804 F.3d 692, 695 (4th
Cir. 2015) (a § 1983 action based on Brady claims may not proceed around the Heck
bar); Grider v. Cook, 590 F. App’x 876, 881 n.8 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting plaintiff’s
request for damages “for violations of his rights to a fair trial, to represent himself,
and to private counsel … implicate the validity of his conviction and are not
appropriately brought under § 1983”).
Third, even if Heck did not bar Pressley’s claims, the claims would be subject
to dismissal based on the four-year statute of limitations. See Ellison v. Lester, 275
F. App’x 900, 901-02 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he four-year statute of limitations under
Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3) applies to § 1983 claims arising in Florida.”); see also Van
Poyck v. McCollum, 646 F.3d 865, 867 (11th Cir. 2011) (The statute of limitations
on a § 1983 claim “begins to run when ‘the facts which would support a cause of
Case 3:26-cv-00124-TKW-HTC Document 4 Filed 01/15/26 Page 4 of 6

Page 5 of 6
Case No. 3:26cv124-TKW-HTC
action are apparent or should be apparent to a person with a reasonably prudent
regard for his rights.’”) (quoting McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168, 1173 (11th Cir.
2008)). The police report Pressley relies on was filed in July 2016, and the report
references the photos of the victim Pressley alleges are exculpatory. 	See State v.
Pressley, Escambia County Case No. 2016 MM 4084. Thus, Pressley should have
been aware of any misconduct related to her prosecution in 2016, before she pled no
contest to the charge, and any related claims are time-barred.
In sum, this is Pressley’s third attempt to recover damages by challenging the
validity of a 10-year-old conviction for battery in this Court.4 And this attempt, like
the prior two, is meritless. Thus, this case should be dismissed without prejudice as
frivolous. See Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1350 (“On the question of frivolousness, a litigant’s
history of bringing unmeritorious litigation can be considered.”).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. 	Pressley’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED as
moot.
And it is RECOMMENDED:
4 Pressley previously filed two actions in this Court which raised similar claims regarding
exculpatory evidence and her 2016 battery conviction. The Court dismissed one action as barred
by Heck (Pressley v. Richardson, N.D. Fla. Case No. 3:24cv522-MCR-HTC), and the other
because the defendant had immunity (Pressley v. First Judicial Circuit, N.D. Fla. Case No.
3:25cv23-TKW-ZCB). 	If Pressley continues to file meritless lawsuits related to her 2016
prosecution, her ability to file cases in this Court may be restricted.
Case 3:26-cv-00124-TKW-HTC Document 4 Filed 01/15/26 Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6
Case No. 3:26cv124-TKW-HTC
1. 	That Pressley’s claims be DISMISSED without prejudice.5
2. 	That the clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 15 th day of January, 2026.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the Report and Recommendation. Any different
deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only
and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections upon
all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to
challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1.
5 See Petersen v. Overstreet, 819 F. App’x 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2020) (noting claims barred by
Heck must be dismissed without prejudice because the claims do not accrue until the plaintiff’s
conviction is overturned).
Case 3:26-cv-00124-TKW-HTC Document 4 Filed 01/15/26 Page 6 of 6