United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
MARSHA L. PAYTON, Plaintiff,
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant.
C. IRJCK, UNITES STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
and Recommendation This cause comes before the Court for
consideration without oral argument on the following motion:
MOTION: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc.
FILED: May 5, 2017
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
5, 2017, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs, which the Court construes as a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (the Motion). Doc. I.
Plaintiff filed no separate complaint, although the Motion
consists of 44 pages of various documents. Id. These
documents include correspondence with Customs and Border
Protection (CBP, which appears to be Plaintiffs former
employer), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the
Merit Systems Protection Board, as well as various documents
related to Plaintiffs termination from CBP and attempts to
challenge that termination and obtain reinstatement of her
employment. Id. In particular, the Motion contains a
copy of an order form the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, in which United States
District Judge Kathleen M. Williams dismissed an action by
Plaintiff against Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security (and Customs and Border Protection).
Id. at 31-33 (Payton v. Johnson, Case No.
15-24573-Civ-Williams, at Doc. 7 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21,
2015)). Further, it appears from certain of the
documents contained within the Motion that Plaintiff filed
the packet of documents that compromise the Motion in each of
the three United States District Courts within Florida (a
March 22, 2017 letter directed to the Miami Division of the
Southern District of Florida, the Tallahassee Division of the
Northern District of Florida, and the Orlando Division of
this District). Doc. 1 at 16.
of reviewing Plaintiffs Motion, the Court is obligated to
review the any complaint for relief associated therewith and
dismiss the case if the action is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Although the Court must liberally construe
Plaintiffs complaint, see Tannenbaum v. United
States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per
curiam), it is under no duty to "rewrite" the
complaint. See Campbell v. Air Jamaica, Ltd, 760
F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir. 2014).
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides that a pleading that
states a claim for relief 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. "To survive a motion to dismiss, 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) (citation omitted). Although pro se
litigants are entitled to a liberal construction of their
pleadings, they are still required to conform to the
procedural rules. See Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d
826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (discussing Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(c)) (citation omitted).
has failed to conform to the procedural rules and has failed
to state a valid cause of action against Defendant. First,
Plaintiff failed to provide a short and plain statement
containing factual allegations sufficient to support the
grounds for the Court's jurisdiction. Second, Plaintiff
failed to provide a short and plaint statement of the claim
containing factual material sufficient to show that she is
entitled to relief.
Order dismissing Plaintiffs 2015 action in the Southern
District of Florida, Judge Williams stated the following in a
The civil cover sheet filed with the complaint indicates that
this case is related to a case that was removed from state
court in 2004 and remanded by Judge Hurley sua sponte.
See Payton v. Ramirez, No. 04-61460-CIV-HURLEY, DE 6
(S.D. Fla. Nov. 12, 2004). However, the more than 100 pages
of exhibits attached to the complaint indicate that in the 11
years since Judge Hurley considered the case and found that
Plaintiffs pleading "fail[ed] to even remotely raise
substantial questions of federal law, " Plaintiff has
raised the same claims in myriad venues including the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, the Merit Systems
Protection Board, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Payton, No. 04-61450-CIV-HURLEY, DE 6 at 4; DE 1-2
at 17, 39, and 51-62. The record supplied to the Court
demonstrates that every justice, judge, administrator,
commission and board to consider Plaintiffs arguments has
found them lacking. Id.
Doc. 1 at 31 (alteration in original).
cases, the Court will provide a pro se litigant such
as Plaintiff at least one opportunity to amend her complaint
prior to a dismissal of that complaint with prejudice and a
closure of the case. However, given Plaintiffs history
litigating this issue in the Southern District of Florida,
the fact that it appears that this action may have been filed
in all three District Courts in Florida, and the fact that it
appears that the Motion is wholly without merit and incapable