Boatman v. Sawyer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

RAYVON L. BOATMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:21-cv-176-JES-MRM

DONALD SAWYER, EMILY SALEMA,

BRIAN LIBEL, J.P. CARNER, DCF

WELLPATH RECOVERY SOLUTIONS GEO

GROUP, SVPPD,CORRECT CARE

RECOVERY, M. MASTERS, and JOHN

DOE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE/CLERK

OFFICE,

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This cause is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff

Rayvon L. Boatman’s pro se civil rights complaint filed against

thirteen employees of the Florida Civil Commitment Center (“FCCC”)

in Arcadia, Florida. (Doc. 1, filed February 26, 2021).

Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on the same

day. (Doc. 2). He seeks to bring this complaint as a class

action on behalf of himself and other FCCC residents, and has

accordingly filed a “Motion for Certification of Class” and a

“Motion for Appointment of Counsel.” (Doc. 3; Doc. 4).

Because Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the

Court must review his complaint to determine whether it is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). For the

reasons given below, the Court dismisses this action without

prejudice to any individual resident filing his own complaint.

I. Complaint

Plaintiff initiated this action on February 26, 2021 by filing

a 21-page, 8-point-font, complaint along with 63 pages of exhibits

related to COVID-19 infections within the FCCC. (Doc. 1; Doc. 1-

1). Plaintiff purports to bring the complaint as a class action

on behalf of “all present and future residents and COVID-19

positive residents and non-positive residents of the Florida Civil

Commitment Center.” (Doc. 1 at 6). Plaintiff generally asserts

that it is impossible for the residents to stay sanitary or

socially distant at the facility, and as a result, the defendants

are not keeping the residents safe. Plaintiff seeks compensatory

and punitive damages of $198,000 per day per resident for each day

they have been held at the FCCC. (Id. at 12–13). He also seeks

the release of all vulnerable FCCC residents. (Id.)

II. 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.1

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, among other things, the

defendants are immune from suit or the claim seeks to enforce a

1 Despite Plaintiff’s non-prisoner status, his amended

complaint is subject to initial review under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B). See Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th

Cir. 2002) (recognizing that the district court did not err when

it dismissed a complaint filed by a civil detainee for failure to

state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)); see also Calhoun

v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (determining that section

1915(e)(2)(B) is not limited to prisoners, but applies to all

persons proceeding in forma pauperis).

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. Georgia 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).”) That

is, 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

(as opposed to legal conclusions) in the complaint must be viewed

as true. Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1347 (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).

III. Analysis

A. Plaintiff cannot bring a civil rights action on behalf

of his fellow detainees.

Plaintiff filed this complaint on behalf of all present and

future FCCC residents. He attached numerous affidavits from

residents detailing their experiences with the facility’s COVID-

19 response, and he also provided the COVID-related medical records

of several residents who tested positive for the virus. (Doc. 1-

21). A prerequisite for class-action certification is a finding

by the Court that the representative party or parties can “fairly

and adequately protect the interest of the class.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 23(a)(4). The Court cannot make this finding. The Eleventh

Circuit has been clear that a non-lawyer proceeding pro se may not

represent the interests of others. See Bass v. Benton, 408 F.

App’x 298, 298 (11th Cir. 2011) (“We have interpreted 28 U.S.C. §

1654, the general provision permitting parties to proceed pro se,

as providing ‘a personal right that does not extend to the

representation of the interests of others.’ “)(quoting Timson v.

Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 873 (11th Cir. 2008)); Wallace v. Smith,

145 F. App’x 300, 302 (11th Cir. 2005) (“It is plain error to

permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to

represent his fellow inmates in a class action.”)2

2 Notably, Plaintiff also moves the court to appoint counsel.

(Doc. 3). Appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a

constitutional right, but a privilege that is justified only by

Accordingly, this “class-action” complaint will be dismissed

without prejudice—and all pending motions denied without

prejudice—to each resident filing his own 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint and any appropriate motions.

B. Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which

relief may be granted.

Even if the Court construes the complaint as filed solely on

behalf of Plaintiff, he has not stated a claim upon which relief

can be granted. Although he repeatedly asserts that the FCCC’s

response to the COVID-19 has been a “train wreck,” Plaintiff’s

alleged harm is based solely on generalized COVID-19 fears and

speculation.

Though a pro se party’s pleading is liberally construed by

courts, the litigant is not relieved from following procedural

rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).

exceptional circumstances, such as where the facts and legal issues

are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained

practitioner. Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088 (11th Cir. 1990).

The facts, as alleged by Plaintiff, show no more than a general

disagreement with the FCCC’s management of the COVID-19 pandemic,

so appointment of counsel would not be appropriate. See Smith v.

Warden, Hardee Corr., Inst., 597 F. App’x 1027, 1030 (11th Cir.

2015) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion

by failing to appoint counsel in a class action he filed against

the Florida Department of Corrections about inmates’ exposure to

cold weather because the issues were not novel or complex). The

Eleventh Circuit has never determined that a plaintiff’s wish to

proceed in a class action, standing alone, constitutes an

“exceptional circumstance.” If an individual resident of the FCCC

can state a COVID-19 related 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, he may bring

his own suit and move for appointment of counsel at that time if

the facts of his case would support such a motion.

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets standards

for the contents of pleadings, and requires complaints to provide

a “short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s

jurisdiction,” a “short and plain statement of the claim showing

that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and a “demand for the

relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)–(3). Rule 10(b)

regulates the form of those pleadings, stating that a “party must

state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs” and must

assert “each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence”

in a “separate count.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

Pleadings that do not comply with Rules 8 and 10 fail to give

the defendants “adequate notice of the claims against them and the

grounds upon which each claim rests” and are called “shotgun”

pleadings. Weiland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, 792

F.3d 1313, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015). In Weiland, the Eleventh Circuit

roughly grouped shotgun pleadings into four groups. Id. at 1321–

23. Included are complaints that are “replete with conclusory,

vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any

particular cause of action,” or assert “multiple claims against

multiple defendants without specifying which of the defendants are

responsible for which acts or omissions or which of the defendants

the claim is brought against.” Id.

Plaintiff’s complaint falls into both of these groups. While

he generally asserts that the defendants acted with deliberate

indifference and gross negligence, and expresses displeasure with

the residents’ housing assignments (believing that the housing

assignments contributed to the spread of COVID-19), he does not

provide a single additional fact to support the claim. Nor does

he explain how each defendant’s actions were unconstitutional or

why he believes he is entitled to $198,000 in damages per day since

the beginning of the pandemic. In other words, the complaint does

not “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.

at 678 (internal quotation omitted). Therefore, Plaintiff’s

complaint neither complies with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure nor states a claim upon which relief can be granted, and

the complaint must be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, 10; 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s class action complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED

without prejudice to any individual plaintiff filing his

or her own 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint along with a filing

3

fee or motion to proceed as a pauper.

3 Plaintiff is cautioned that the Court will instruct the

Clerk to return any future complaints that use a font size smaller

than 12 points.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2)

is DENIED as moot, and Plaintiff is not assessed a filing

fee.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for class certification (Doc. 4) is

DENIED.

4. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 3)

is DENIED.

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to deny any additional

pending motions as moot, close this case, and enter

judgment accordingly.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on July 21, 2021.

VAY = Pe

E. STEELE

Sq IOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SA: FTMP-2

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Unrepresented Parties