Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Oyola v. Thomas

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division

December 12, 2017

MIGUEL OYOLA, Plaintiff,
v.
CHAUNCEY VINCENT THOMAS, SR. and MITCHELL M. BLANKS, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER [1]

          SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on review of the Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. #1) filed on August 28, 2017. Plaintiff Miguel Oyola is an inmate at the Desoto Correctional Institution (DeSoto CI) in Arcadia, Florida. Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff initiated this action against two inmates at DeSoto CI, Chauncey V. Thomas and Mitchell M. Blanks. (Doc. #1). Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. #2). Because Plaintiff seeks leave 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. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

         BACKGROUND

         In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Blanks and Thomas are involved in starting a drug business trafficking K-2, Molley, Meth, Heroin, and Marijuana in Desoto CI. Plaintiff states that Blanks' entire family is heavily involved in the drug business in Fort Myers. Plaintiff offers to read out to officers the names and times of future drug transactions by the Defendants. Plaintiff also alleges that Mtichell and Blanks have spoken about setting fire to the homes of the judges in the Fort Myers Federal Court.

         STANDARDS OF REVIEW

         A federal district court is required to review a civil complaint filed in forma pauperis and to 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. In essence, § 1915(e)(2) is a screening process to be applied sua sponte and at any time during the proceedings. The mandatory language of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 applies to all proceedings in forma pauperis. The section 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; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In making the above determinations, all factual allegations in the complaint must be viewed as true. Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1347 (11th Cir. 2004). Moreover, the Court must read the plaintiff's pro se allegations in a liberal fashion. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).

         A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) where it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim is frivolous as a matter of law where, inter alia, the defendants are immune from suit or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.