Opinion

Lawton v. Camillus House Inc.

Court
District Court, S.D. Florida
Filed
Aug 18, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 20.2%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 23-cv-23142-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

NISHON LATIA LAWTON

Plaintiff,

v.

CAMILLUS HOUSE INC., and

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL

IMPROVEMENT TR FUND STATE OF FL,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record. On August 17,

2023, Plaintiff Nishon Latia Lawton (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint, ECF No. [1], and an

Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Motion to Proceed in

Forma Pauperis”), ECF No. [3]. Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, has not paid the required filing fee, and

therefore the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) are applicable. Pursuant to the statute,

courts are permitted to dismiss a suit “any time . . . the court determines that . . . (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).

To state a claim for relief, a pleading must contain: “(1) a short and plain statement of the

grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . ; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “A

party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable

to a single set of circumstances.” Id. 10(b). More importantly, “a complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon

which it rests[.]” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up).

Courts must “construe pro se pleadings liberally, holding them to a less stringent standard

than those drafted by attorneys.” Arrington v. Green, 757 F. App’x 796, 797 (11th Cir. 2018)

(citation omitted). Still, a pro se party must abide by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2),

which requires that a pleading contain a “short and plain statement of the claim” showing the

pleader is entitled to relief. See Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021).

Plaintiff has filed a Complaint asserting a claim under the Civil Rights Act, 42. U.S.C.

§1983. “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 United States Constitution or federal law and (2) such

deprivation occurred under color of state law.” Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 737 (11th

Cir. 2010). Plaintiff alleges that “plaintiffs Nishon Latia Lawton and Douglas E. Warren applied

for in two seperate [sic] applications, Rapid Re-Housing administered by CAMILLUS HOUSE

INC.” ECF No. [1] at 2. The Complaint continues with allegations that after in-person visits,

unanswered emails and phone calls plaintiffs exhausted remedies. Plaintiff further alleges that

Camillus House, Inc. “was intrusted [sic] with plaintiff’s private information in the form of social

security cards, social security numbers applied to application, birth certificates, expired state and

county identification all given in original form in which CAMILLUS HOUSE INC employees

demanded copies as a precondition to services being rendered.” Id. Those allegations do not state

a viable claim for relief under 42. U.S.C. §1983 because they do not allege that Plaintiff was

deprived of a Constitutional or federal right by Defendant and do not allege that Defendant acted

under color of state law.

Case No. 23-cv-23142-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. This Case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma Pauperis, ECF No. [3], is DENIED as

moot.

3. The Clerk shall CLOSE the case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on August 18, 2023.

_ f-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Nishon Latia Lawton

525 Market Street

Camden, NJ 08102

PRO SE

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.