Rodriguez Cruz v. Shaffer

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: July 5, 2023
• Docket: 1:23-cv-22490
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 23-cv-22490-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ CRUZ,

Plaintiff, v.

STEVEN SHAFFER,

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 (“Plaintiff”) Complaint, ECF No. [1], docketed on July 5, 2023. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee but has moved to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. [3]. 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 must be dismissed. 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[.]” Fed. R. Civ. p. 8(a). 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); see also Rayburn v. Hogue, 241 F.3d 1341, 1348 (11th Cir. 2001). Even under the relaxed pleading standard afforded to pro se litigants, the Complaint here fails to state a claim for relief. See Abele v. Tolbert, 130 F. App’x 342, 343 (11th Cir. 2005). The Complaint is styled as a Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1932. ECF No. [1] at 1. The Complaint alleges that a deputy sheriff of the Orange County Sheriff’s Office wrote a “ticket” to an individual who stole Plaintiff’s identity. See id. at 2. As a result, an arrest warrant was issued, resulting in Plaintiff’s incarceration for a total of 24 days. Id. Those are the entirety of Case No. 23-cv-22490-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

the allegations in the Complaint. As such, 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. Thus, the Complaint fails to adequately allege Plaintiff is entitled to relief under Section 1983.1 Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED without prejudice; 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. [3], is DENIED AS MOOT; and 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on July 5, 2023.

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

' Plaintiff is not a stranger to this Court. On February 13, 2023, the Court dismissed another of Plaintiff’s complaints, styled as under brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to state a claim for relief, and denied as moot his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See Cruz v. Felix, No. 23-cv-20539, 2023 WL 1965084, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2023), ECF No. [4].