Williams v. Seminole Hardrock Hotel & Casino

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

BRITTANY LAPRINCESS WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:25-cv-1370-TPB-CPT

SEMINOLE HARDROCK HOTEL

AND CASINO,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AS FRIVOLOUS AND CLOSING CASE

This matter is before the Court sua sponte on Plaintiff Brittany Williams’s pro

se complaint, filed on May 28, 2025. (Doc. 1). After reviewing the complaint, court

file, and the record, the Court finds as follows:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain “a short

and plain statement of the claim showing the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a). “Although Rule 8(a) does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ it does

require ‘more than labels and conclusions’; a ‘formulaic recitation of the cause of action

will not do.’” Young v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 18-62468, 2018 WL 7572240, at *1 (S.D.

Fla. Dec. 6, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 18-62468-CIV, 2019 WL

1112274 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2019) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544

(2007)). As Plaintiff in this case is proceeding pro se, the Court more liberally

construes the pleadings. Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2018).

However, a pro se plaintiff must still conform with procedural rules and the Court does

not have “license to act as de facto counsel” on behalf of a pro se plaintiff. United

States v. Padgett, 917 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th Cir. 2019).

Plaintiff -- a current inmate at the Lowell Correctional Institution in Ocala,

Florida -- has filed a civil complaint against Defendant Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and

Casino. In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is “violating her right to no

cruel and unusual punishment” and “is a state actor by using Florida’s rule that

behavioral misconduct is illegal and punishable by death.” She claims that “[t]he

connection between Plaintiff and Defendant is that both are a kind of Indian. . .

[m]aking them spiritually connected.” She appears to blame Defendant for the

injuries and deaths of several family members beginning in 1997, and for “child

removals” by the Florida Department of Children and Families. She requests $5.2

billion dollars for “cruel and unusual spiritual, eventually physical death, child

removals, and traumas.”

Upon review, the Court finds that the complaint is woefully inadequate and

cannot support a cause of action against Defendant. Initially, the Court finds that the

complaint is essentially incomprehensible. Plaintiff has failed to provide a “short and

plain” statement of the facts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Instead, the complaint consists of

“a rambling series of incomprehensible allegations.” See Beekman v. Fed. Home Loan

Mortg. Corp., No. 16-81477-CIV-MARRA, 2017 WL 7733274, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 2,

2017) (internal quotation omitted). The paragraphs contain a “confusing combination

of facts, legal analysis, and bare accusations.” See Thomason v. Ala. Home Builders

Licensure Board, 741 F. App’x 638, 641 (11th Cir. 2018). Because Plaintiff has failed

to place Defendant on notice of the claims against it or advance any plausible claim

upon which relief can be granted, her complaint must be dismissed.

Normally, a pro se plaintiff “must be given at least one chance to amend the

complaint before the district court dismisses the action with prejudice,” unless

amendment is futile. Bank v. Pitt, 928 F.2d 1108, 1112 (11th Cir. 1991). A district

court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte if the complaint is patently frivolous. See

Guthrie v. United States Gov’t, No. 17-80390-MIDDLEBROOKS, 2017 WL 5479877, at

*2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2017) (internal citations omitted); Morris v. Bush, No. 1:07-cv-

00187-MP-AK, 2008 WL 4525016, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2008). “A complaint is

frivolous ‘where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” Guthrie, 2017 WL

5479877, at *2 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)).

A review of the complaint shows that Plaintiff’s allegations are patently

frivolous, completely irrational, and wholly incredible. Because the allegations are

frivolous and any amendment would be futile, this action should be dismissed with

prejudice. See Gary v. United States Gov’t, 540 F. App’x 916, 916-18 (11th Cir. 2013)

(affirming the sua sponte dismissal of complaint with prejudice where the plaintiff

sued a number of high-level government officials and intelligence agencies, alleging

that they had implanted microchips into her body that were “used to conduct

biomedical research regarding her reproductive system, to track her movements, and

to cause her pain”); Qamar v. C.I.A., 489 F. App’x 393, 395 (11th Cir. 2012) (holding

district court did not abuse discretion when dismissing as frivolous plaintiff’s

complaints involving alleged rapes inside the jail); Guthrie, 2017 WL 5479877, at *2-3

(sua sponte dismissing complaint with prejudice where the plaintiff sued the United

States government, along with other parties, for committing crimes and torts against

him over a thirteen year period, including allegations that the government conspired

to “burgle his home, drug him, and install surveillance’).

Plaintiff is warned that if she files frivolous cases in this Court, she

may be subject to sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

11(c), including monetary sanctions or injunctive relief directing the Clerk to

not accept future filings by Plaintiff without first obtaining prior leave of the

Court.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

1. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.

2. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and

thereafter close this case.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 4th day of June,

2025.

NAP. GA.

TOMBARBER i si ss—SsC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 4 of 4