Opinion
Case No: 6:19-cv-1116-Orl-41GJK
07-15-2019
TOMMY CHANCI CASTLE, SR., Plaintiff, v. THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This cause came on for consideration sua sponte. The Complaint is unintelligible, contains no basis for the Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction, and requests no specific relief. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff's complaint fails to satisfy the basic pleading standards articulated in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To state a claim, a plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the basis of the court's jurisdiction, the plaintiff's entitlement to relief, and a demand for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The plaintiff must allege the claim in a legible manner with numbered paragraphs, incorporating by reference other parts of the pleading for clarity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10. Relevant facts should be segregated to each of their respective claims. See Beckwith v. Bellsouth Telecoms, Inc., 146 F. App'x. 368, 372 (11th Cir. 2005). Although district courts apply a "less stringent standard" to the pleadings submitted by a pro se plaintiff, even pro se litigants must allege the essential elements of their claims for relief. See Eidson v. Arenas, 910 F. Supp. 609, 612 (M.D. Fla. 1995). Plaintiff fails to satisfy the minimal pleading standards applicable in this case. Giving him an opportunity to amend would be pointless. Plaintiff has not alleged facts to suggest that if given another chance, he will be able to state a cause of action against any defendant. Allowing him the opportunity to replead will unnecessarily waste scarce judicial resources.
In this circuit, "[u]npublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, but they may be cited as persuasive authority." 11th Cir. R. 36-2.
Plaintiff previously filed complaints in this Court that were dismissed. Castle v. State of Florida, et al., Case No. 6:18-cv-243-Orl-41GJK, Doc. Nos. 16, 18 (dismissing for failure to effect service); Castle and 4 Castle's Inc. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 6:18-cv-1448-Orl-40TBS, Doc. Nos. 6, 14 (dismissing with prejudice due to nonsensical complaint).
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court enter an order:
1. DISMISSING the case with prejudice; and
2. DIRECTING the Clerk to close the case.
NOTICE TO PARTIES
A party has fourteen days from this date to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation's factual findings and legal conclusions. Failure to file written objections waives that party's right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual finding or legal conclusion the district judge adopts from the Report and Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
RECOMMENDED in Orlando, Florida, on July 15, 2019.
/s/_________
GREGORY J. KELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Copies furnished to: Presiding District Judge
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party
Courtroom Deputy