Rodriguez Cruz v. Felix

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: February 13, 2023
• Docket: 1:23-cv-20539
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 23-cv-20539-BLOOM

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ CRUZ,

Plaintiff, v.

NICKELSON I. FELIX

Defendant. _______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a review of pro se Plaintiff Francisco Rodriguez Cruz’s Complaint, ECF No. [1], and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, ECF No. [3], docketed on February 9, 2022. Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who has not paid the required filing fee, the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) apply. Under the statute, courts are permitted to dismiss a suit “any time [] the court determines that . . . (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). Having screened Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court concludes it is subject to dismissal. To state a claim for relief, a pleading must contain: “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . ; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought[.]” In addition, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Courts must “construe pro se pleadings liberally, holding them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.” Arrington v. Green, 757 F. App’x 796, 797 (11th Cir. 2018). Still, a pro se party must abide by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires that a pleading contain a “short and plain statement of the claim” showing the pleader is entitled to relief. See

Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021). “[T]he 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. Cnty. 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)). In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must plead that he was (1) deprived of a right; (2) secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (3) that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law. See Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999); Rayburn v. Hogue, 241 F.3d 1341, 1348 (11th Cir. 2001).

Even under the relaxed pleading standard afforded to pro se litigants, see Abele v. Tolbert, 130 F. App’x 342, 343 (11th Cir. 2005), the Complaint fails. The Complaint is styled as an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. [1] at 1. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was walking on the sidewalk in front of “1331 nw 198th st” and that a dog “belonging to the address mentioned” bit Plaintiff’s left calf and right leg, causing deep punctures and bleeding, requiring emergency medical evacuation. Id. at 2. The Complaint further alleges that the owner of the dog is Defendant Nickelson I. Felix. Id. Those allegations fail to support a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights as the Court is unable to ascertain whether Plaintiff was deprived of a constitutional or statutory right under the color of state law. Case No. 23-cv-20539-BLOOM

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case and Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. [3], is DENIED AS MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on February 13, 2023.

BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Francisco Rodriguez Cruz 15605 SW 295 TERRACE HOMESTEAD, FL 33033 PRO SE