The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 21-cv-60684-BLOOM
JOHN EDWARD BRADHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
DETECTIVE STEVEN SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff John Edward Bradham’s (“Plaintiff”)
Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, ECF No. [1] (“Complaint”). To date, Plaintiff has
neither paid the $402.00 filing fee, nor sought leave to proceed to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”). The Complaint is nonetheless subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), which does not distinguish between plaintiffs who proceed IFP
and those who pay the filing fee. See Thompson v. Hicks, 213 F. App’x 939, 942 (11th Cir. 2007).
For the reasons set forth below, the Complaint is dismissed.
I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants Detective Steven Smith, Detective Carlton
Smith, and the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. ECF No. [1] at 1. He alleges that Fort
Lauderdale police officials violated his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment
rights “befor[e] and after [he] was taken into custody. Perjury and false imprisonment.” Id. at 2.
Plaintiff seeks four million dollars in damages for his “suffering” and “mental anguish.” Id.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“Under § 1915A, the district court is required to review a complaint in which a prisoner
seeks redress against governmental entities, employees, or officers and dismiss the complaint if it
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or (2) seeks
monetary relief from an immune defendant.” Thompson, 213 F. App’x at 942.
In reviewing a complaint under § 1915A, a court must take the allegations in the complaint
as true. Anderson v. Donald, 261 F. App’x 254, 255 (11th Cir. 2008); see also Hughes v. Lott, 350
F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (11th Cir. 2003). Furthermore, courts hold complaints that pro se prisoners
file to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Nonetheless, under § 1915A, courts may dismiss as frivolous claims that
lack any arguable basis either in fact or in law, are “based on an indisputably meritless legal
theory,” or “whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
325, 327 (1989).
The standards governing dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) are the
same as the standards that govern dismissal under § 1915A for failure to state a claim. See White
v. Lemma, 947 F.3d 1373, 1376-77 (11th Cir. 2020). Thus, a court may dismiss a complaint that
fails “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). Although federal courts give liberal construction to pro se pleadings, courts
“nevertheless, have required them to conform to procedural rules.” Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d
826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). As such, a court may dismiss a case sua sponte
when the plaintiff fails to comply with procedural rules. See Hanna v. Florida, 599 F. App’x 362,
363 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501
U.S. 32, 48-49 (1991)).
Rule 8 requires that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). There is no required technical form,
but “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Id. at 8(d)(1). The statement must “give
the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly,
550 U.S. at 545 (alteration in original) (quotation omitted). Additionally, each separate claim
should be presented in a separate numbered paragraph, with each paragraph “limited as far as
practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).
To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a complaint’s factual allegations “must
be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” with “enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570. Under this standard, legal
conclusions “are not entitled to the assumption of truth” and are insufficient to state a claim.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s bare bones allegations are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Although pro se plaintiffs are afforded liberal construction of their complaints, see
Haines, 404 U.S. at 520, Plaintiff’s two-sentence statement does not provide enough details to
even hypothesize a potential claim. Under the standard set forth in Twombly/Iqbal, the scant
allegations presented here are conclusory and do not warrant relief.
Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to either pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed in
district court without payment. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), the Clerk of Court is instructed to
require parties instituting a civil action to pay a filing fee. See id. Nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1),
any court of the United States may authorize the commencement . . . of any suit,
action or proceeding, civil or criminal, . . . without prepayment of fees or security
therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets
such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security
therefor.
Id. To this end, Local Rule 88.2(b) of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida provides:
Case No. 21-cv-60684-BLOOM
When a petition, motion to vacate, or complaint is submitted in forma pauperis, the
petitioner/movant/plaintiff shall submit the form “Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit,” which may be obtained from the Clerk of the
Court, or an affidavit which substantially follows the form, and shall, under oath,
set forth information which establishes that he or she is unable to pay the fees and
costs of the proceedings referenced above.
7d. Plaintiff has failed to properly file his § 1983 Complaint.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Complaint, ECF No. [1], is
DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim and
for failure to pay a filing fee. The Clerk of Court is directed to mark the case as CLOSED, and
any pending motions are DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on March 31, 2021.
+ -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
John Edward Bradham, Pro Se
501802255
Broward County Jail-JCF
J. Conte Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33340