# Williams v. Seminole Hardrock Hotel & Casino > District Court, M.D. Florida · June 4, 2025 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11065397 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida - **Decided:** June 4, 2025 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11065397 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding district court did not abuse discretion when dismissing as frivolous plaintiff’s complaints involving alleged rapes inside the jail ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11065397. Public record. Not legal advice.