Opinion
22-cv-21633-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
05-27-2022
JULIAN PERAZA PEREZ, Plaintiff, v. MIAMI POLICE, Defendant.
ORDER
BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff Julian Peraza Perez's (“Plaintiff”) Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, ECF No. [3] (“Motion”), filed in conjunction with Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. [1] (“Complaint”). The Court has carefully considered the Complaint, the Motion, the record in this case, and the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed, and his Motion is denied as moot.
Plaintiff has not paid the required filing fee and, thus, the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) are applicable. 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. However, “proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right.” Camp v. Oliver, 798 F.2d 434, 437 (11th Cir. 1986). The privilege of using the federal courts for free to right an individual civil wrong should be granted “sparingly.” Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting Flowers v. Turbine Support Div., 507 F.2d 1242, 1244 (5th Cir. 1975)). 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 . . . therefor, 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, 364 F.3d at 1306 n.1 (interpreting statute to apply to all persons seeking to proceed IFP).
Further, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) states in relevant part:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(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). Under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a complaint may be dismissed if the court determines that the action is frivolous. “[A]n action is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Further, under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a complaint may be dismissed if the court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See Wright v. Miranda, 740 Fed.Appx. 692, 694 (11th Cir. 2018). The standard for determining whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted is the same whether under § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See Pullen v. Sec 'y, Dep t of Corr., No. 19-11797-C, 2019 WL 5784952, at *1 (citingMitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997)).
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, a complaint 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). There is no required technical form, but “each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). The statement must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, “a complaint must allege sufficient facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face.” Pullen, No. 19-11797-C, 2019 WL 5784952, at *1 (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The “factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). The plaintiff is obligated to allege “more than mere labels and legal conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Quality Auto Painting Ctr. of Roselle, Inc. v. State Farm Indemnity Co., 917 F.3d 1249, 1262 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting BellAtl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555).
“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” See Rodriguez v. Scott, 775 Fed.Appx. 599, 602 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)). Thus, the allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the pro se plaintiff. See Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). However, a pro se filer “still must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Rodriguez, 775 Fed.Appx. at 602 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) and Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)). A district court is not required to “rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Rodriguez, 794 Fed.Appx. at 603 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
In this case, Plaintiff's Complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and warrants dismissal. Even after applying the less stringent standard afforded to pro se pleadings, the Court cannot identify a legal basis for relief. In addition, there is no coherence to the factual allegations in the Complaint. The Court cannot discern from the pleading what Plaintiff's specific allegations are nor when the events related to his claim occurred. Plaintiff appears to allege in a conclusory manner that “[m]y civil and human rights have been violate[d] and I recibe [sic] punishment in yield [sic] fisic [sic] and sicological [sic].” ECF No. [1] at 1. Such Otazo-Reyes a conclusory allegation does not satisfy the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Furthermore, the Court cannot discern any relief requested.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. [3], is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
Plaintiff did not provide a mailing address for notice and states that he has “no house.” ECF No. [3] at 4. As such, the Court has no choice but to forego notice of the Court's Order.
DONE AND ORDERED