“The language of section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and we will apply Rule 12(b)(6) standards in reviewing dismissals under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).”
How later courts described this case
- “The language of section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and we will apply Rule 12(b)(6) standards in reviewing dismissals under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
CHARLIE JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 2:18-cv-252-FtM-38MRM
MICHAEL A. COLOMBO, JR.,
FRANCINE H DONNOROMMO,
RAMERO MANALICH, SAM
SORRELLE, STEPHEN B.
RUSSELL, LINDA DOGGETT, MR.
WALSH, THOMAS REESE, RYAN P.
DOWNEY and ALESHA MOREL,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
This matter is before the Court upon Sua Sponte Review of the Record. Plaintiff
initiated this action by filing a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Complaint Form (Doc.
1) while detained in the Lee County Jail.
BACKGROUND
The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s initial Complaint (Doc. 1) and directed him to file an
Amended Complaint that complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that
stated a claim for which relief could be granted. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff has filed his Amended
Complaint (Doc. 8) and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 9).
1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the
Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products
they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s
availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A federal district court is required to review a civil complaint filed in forma pauperis
and to dismiss any such complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The mandatory language of 28
U.S.C. § 1915 applies to all proceedings in forma pauperis. Specifically, the section
provides:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may
have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if
the court determines that--
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal-
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted; or
(iii)seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) where it lacks
an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim
is frivolous as a matter of law where, inter alia, the defendants are immune from suit or
the claim seeks to enforce a right that clearly does not exist. Id. at 327. In addition, where
an affirmative defense would defeat a claim, it may be dismissed as frivolous. Clark v.
Ga. Pardons & Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 640 n.2 (11th Cir. 1990).
The phrase “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” has the same
meaning as the nearly identical phrase in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See
Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997) (“The language of section
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and we
will apply Rule 12(b)(6) standards in reviewing dismissals under section
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).”). Although a complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations,
there “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level”, and the
complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim that is “plausible on its face.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007). In making the above determinations,
all factual allegations in the complaint must be viewed as true. Brown v. Johnson, 387
F.3d 1344, 47 (11th Cir. 2004). Moreover, the Court must read the plaintiff’s pro se
allegations in a liberal fashion. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
DISCUSSION
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 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 County, 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
County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1059 (11th Cir. 2001).
In civil rights cases, more than conclusory and vague allegations are required to
state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 556-
7 (11th Cir. 1984); Baskin v. Parker, 602 F.2d 1205, 1208 (5th Cir. 1979). Although
personal participation is not specifically required for liability under § 1983, there must be
some causal connection between the defendant named and the injury allegedly
sustained. Sims v. Adams, 537 F.2d 829 (5th Cir. 1976).
In its Order dismissing Plaintiffs initial Complaint, The Court cautioned Plaintiff that
his Amended Complaint must: (1) comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2)
that he must name each Defendant responsible for the alleged constitutional violations;
and (3) specify how each Defendant's action violated same or his Amended Complaint
would be dismissed. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to correct the deficiencies found
in his initial Complaint.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his rights, however; he provides no factual
basis to support those claims. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the officers
and judges in Lee County Courts have no jurisdiction over him because he is a living
breathing man distinguished from his property and title. (Doc. 8 at_5). The Amended
Complaint then enumerates constitutional violations and alleged wrongs but does not
specify who committed the violations nor what actions the named Defendants did to cause
a violation. (Doc. 8 at_5). Rather than comply with the Court’s Order, Plaintiff filed
essentially the same Complaint the Court dismissed. Even liberally construing the
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim under § 1983. Thus,
Plaintiffs case is due to be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
Plaintiffs case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment
accordingly, terminate all pending motions and deadlines, and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 10th day of December 2019.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record