UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

ASHLEY GODDARD,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:23-cv-314-BJD-JBT

THE SMART STAY INN AND SUITES,

Defendant. _______________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, Ashley Goddard, initiated this action pro se by filing a complaint for the violation of civil rights under

(Doc. 1; Compl.) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). When Plaintiff filed her complaint, she was a pretrial detainee housed at the Broward County Jail. See Compl. at 1; Doc. 1-1 (mailing envelope). She has since been released. See Notice of Change of Address (Doc. 3). Plaintiff seeks relief from a St. Augustine hotel where she was staying at the time of her arrest. See Compl. at 2-3. She asserts the hotel staff stole or destroyed her valuable and irreplaceable personal property while she was in jail.

. Because Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee when she filed her complaint, the Court must assess whether it states a plausible claim for relief. See

(e)(2)(B) (authorizing a district court to dismiss a complaint that “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted”); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b) (providing that a district court “shall” review a civil rights complaint filed

by a prisoner to ensure it states a plausible claim for relief). To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting “under color of [state law]” deprived her of a right secured under the United States Constitution or federal law. See

. See also

Harvey v. Harvey,

(11th Cir. 1992) (“A successful [§] 1983 action requires a showing that the conduct complained of (1) was committed by a person acting under color of state law . . . .”). The under-color-of-law element requires a plaintiff to allege “the deprivation [was] made by a state actor.”

Charles v. Johnson,

(11th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff filed a nearly identical complaint in October 2022, which this Court dismissed without prejudice, in part because she did not allege a deprivation by a state actor but rather sued a private entity. See Orders (Docs.

14, 16), Case No. 3:22-cv-1262-HLA-JBT. As before, Plaintiff does not allege a viable claim under § 1983 because she seeks relief from a private entity, not a state actor. Accordingly, her complaint is due to be dismissed without prejudice for her failure to state a plausible claim for relief. See

(e)(2)(B).

2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this case without prejudice, terminate any pending motions, and close the file. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 22nd day of March 2023.

J) é / = fo Atae | bgp BRIAN. DAVIS United States District Judge

Jax-6 Ashley Goddard