United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
E. STEELE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
an inmate at the Moore Haven Correctional Facility in Moore
Haven, Florida, initiated this action by filing a pro
se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against Defendants Jane Doe Larizza, R. J. Larizza, Jane
Doe Perkins, and Terence Perkins (Doc. 3, filed March 27,
2017). Along with his complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). On April 21,
2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which he added
the State of Florida and the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court
as defendants (Doc. 9).
Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the
Court must review his complaint to determine whether it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§
reasons given in this Order, the claims raised in the
complaint are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. §
amended complaint is very difficult to understand. Generally,
he asserts that he is “a constituent member of that
certain body corporate and real and natural sovereign body
known as the good People of these Colonies,
successor sovereign to King George III of England. . .”
(Doc. 9 at 1) (emphasis in original). He asserts that his
complaint “does not fit within the DISTRICT COURT's
form for civil rights violations as [he] is not [a] statutory
citizen, and [he is] not claiming jurisdiction under said
statutes.” Id. (emphasis in original).
Plaintiff asserts that he is the “true heir and
beneficiary” of his own legal estate, and as a result,
he exercises his “right to the possession and control
of the same.” Id. at 3.
sues the Courts and prosecuting attorneys from his underlying
criminal case and asserts that they (the defendants) are
“for-profit corporations acting under military process
as opposed to de jure courts and offices of the
people.” Id. at 6. He asserts that the court
“receives an income stream from every conviction, which
is a huge conflict of interest.” Id. As a
result, Plaintiff challenges the subject matter jurisdiction
of the state criminal court, and urges that his conviction is
void. Id. Plaintiff further urges that
“criminal prosecutions are civil, and the Sureties are
being put in prison for contempt for failing to pay the
debt.” Id. at 9.
seeks damages and the dismissal of his underlying criminal
conviction (Doc. 9 at 11-12).
federal district court is required to review a civil
complaint filed in forma pauperis and dismiss any
such complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. The mandatory language of 28 U.S.C. § 1915
applies to all proceedings in forma pauperis.
Section 1915 provides:
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;
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune