Opinion
Case No. 18-cv-81159-BLOOM/Reinhart
08-31-2018
GARFIELD HENRY, Plaintiff, v. ATLANTIC CREDIT & FINANCE, INC. and PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Defendants.
Copies to: Counsel of Record Garfield Henry, pro se 1401 Village Blvd. Apt. 2012 West Palm Beach, FL 33409
ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING CASE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the pro se Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, ECF No. [3] (the "Application" or "Motion"), filed in conjunction with Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. [1] (the "Complaint"), asserted against Defendants Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. ("Atlantic") and Publix Super Markets, Inc. ("Publix"). Plaintiff Garfield Henry ("Plaintiff" or "Henry") has not paid the required filing fee and, thus, the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) are applicable. The Court has carefully reviewed the Complaint, the Application, and the record in this case, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Application is DENIED AS MOOT.
Fundamental to our conception and system of justice is that the courthouse doors will not be closed to persons based on their inability to pay a filing fee. Congress has provided that a court "may authorize the commencement . . . or prosecution of any suit, action or proceeding . . . or appeal therein, without the prepayment of fees . . . therefore, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306 n.1 (11th Cir. 2004) (interpreting statute to apply to all persons seeking to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP")). Permission to proceed in forma pauperis is committed to the sound discretion of the court. Camp v. Oliver, 798 F.2d 434, 437 (11th Cir. 1986); see also Thomas v. Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit, 574 F. App'x 916, 916 (11th Cir. 2014) ("A district court has wide discretion in ruling on an application for leave to proceed IFP."). However, "proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right." Camp, 798 F.2d at 437.
In addition to the required showing that the litigant, because of poverty, is unable to pay for the court fees and costs, Martinez, 364 F.3d at 1307, upon a motion to proceed in forma pauperis the Court is required to examine whether "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). If the Court determines that the complaint satisfies any of the three enumerated circumstances under Section 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss the complaint.
A pleading in a civil action must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations," it must provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that Rule 8(a)(2)'s pleading standard "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation"). Nor can a complaint rest on "'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (alteration in original)). "[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "A claim is frivolous when it 'has little or no chance of success,' that is, when it appears 'from the face of the complaint that the factual allegations are clearly baseless or that the legal theories are indisputably meritless.'" Hoang v. DeKalb Housing Auth., No. 1:13-cv-3796-WSD, 2014 WL 1028926, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 19, 2014) (quoting Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993)); see Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (holding that a claim is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact"). Importantly, "[p]ro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and [are] liberally construed," Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). "But the leniency accorded pro se litigants does not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading to sustain an action." Matthews, Wilson & Matthews, Inc. v. Capital City Bank, 614 F. App'x 969, 969 n.1 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cty. of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled in part on other grounds by Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 709 (11th Cir. 2010)).
The Complaint in this case must be dismissed because it contains virtually no facts, is riddled with legal conclusions, and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. According to the few facts alleged, Plaintiff was served with notice of a lawsuit filed against him by Defendant Atlantic in state court, and a writ of garnishment issued in conjunction with that case. Immediately thereafter, Plaintiff asserts that he requested a hearing within the twenty (20) days he had to respond according to the summons; however, his wages had begun to be garnished the day after he received the summons. Apparently, Publix also began to garnish his wages. Plaintiff therefore appears to be challenging the legality of the garnishment, asserting the same claims against Atlantic and Publix for violations of due process, the Consumer Credit Protection Act, Florida Statutes Title XV regarding exemptions of wages from garnishment, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. However, based upon the scant factual basis alleged in the Complaint, the Court cannot discern any actionable claims arising from those facts. The Complaint's legal theories, as presented here, are therefore meritless and the Complaint is subject to dismissal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. Plaintiff's Application, ECF No. [3], is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 31st day of August, 2018.
/s/ _________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record Garfield Henry, pro se
1401 Village Blvd.
Apt. 2012
West Palm Beach, FL 33409