United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Ocala Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
R. LAMMENS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Rolle has been a frequent litigator in this District and the
Northern District of Florida, filing repeated civil rights
actions pursuant to § 1983 against judges, prosecutors,
appointed and privately retained attorneys, probation
officers, and the City of Tallahassee, related to his 2002
state court conviction and subsequent probation violation
proceedings. His claims have been repeatedly dismissed as
frivolous. See e.g., Rolle v. Glenn, No.
4:17-cv-134-MW-CAS, (N.D. Fla. March 31, 2017), aff'd,
2017 WL 4708166 (11th Cir. 2017); Rolle v.
Glenn, No. 5:15-cv-190-Oc-39PRL (M.D. Fla. January 27,
2017), Rolle v. Raysor, No. 5:15-cv-180-Oc-30PRL
(M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2015); Rolle v. Maceluch, No.
5:15-cv-191-Oc-30PRL (M.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2015); Rolle v.
U.S. Marshals Serv., No. 5:15-cv-192-Oc22PRL (M.D. Fla.
July 20, 2015); Rolle v. Edwards, No.
5:15-cv-202-Oc-30PRL (M.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2015); Rolle v.
Raysor, No. 5:15-cv-268-Oc-30PRL (M.D. Fla. June 3,
2015); Rolle v. Edwards, No. 5:15-cv-271- Oc-34PRL
(M.D. Fla. July 22, 2015); Rolle v. Maceluch et
al, No. 5:15-cv-285-MMH-PRL (October 8, 2015), Rolle
v. Bruce, No. 5:15-cv-320-Oc-22PRL (M.D. Fla. July 24,
2015), Rolle v. City of Tallahassee, et al., No.
5:15-cv-462-JSM-PRL (September 14, 2015); Rolle v.
Dilmore, et al, No. 4:14-cv-339-RH-CAS (N.D. Fla. July
Rolle has been repeatedly cautioned that sanctions would be
imposed against him for filing frivolous complaints, and
sanctions have been imposed on at least two occasions. In
October 2015, he was sanctioned $200.00 in the Middle
District of Florida, see Rolle v. City of Tallahassee, et
al., No. 5:15-cv-462-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla. October 8, 2015)
(Moody, J.), and in May 2017, he was prospectively banned
from filing new cases related to his January 4, 2002 arrest
unless he paid the entire filing fee in the Northern District
of Florida, See Rolle v. Dilmore, et al., No.
4:16-cv-425-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla. May 23, 2017) (Hinkle, J.).
during the first few weeks of January 2018, Plaintiff filed
six new cases in this Court, arising largely out of the same
events addressed in previous lawsuits. See Rolle v. West
et al., No. 5:18-cv-8-JSM-PRL, Rolle v. Robinson et
al., No. 5:18-cv-13-JSM-PRL, Rolle v. Shelfer et
al., No. 5:18-cv-18-JSM-PRL, Rolle v. City of
Tallahassee et al., No. 5:18-cv-25-JSM-PRL, Rolle v.
City of Tallahassee et al., No. 5:18-cv-45-JSM-PRL,
Rolle v. Perry, et al., No. 5:18-cv-46-JSM-PRL.
Plaintiff has also filed motions to proceed in forma
a plaintiff is permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court is obligated to review the complaint
to determine whether it is frivolous, 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.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). If the complaint is deficient, the Court is
required to dismiss the suit sua sponte. Id.
lawsuit is frivolous if the plaintiff's realistic chances
of ultimate success are slight.” Clark v. Ga.
Pardons and Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 639 (11th Cir.
1984) (internal citations omitted). The district court may
dismiss a complaint under § 1915 on grounds of
frivolousness if an affirmative defense would defeat the
action. Id. at 640. For example, the absolute
immunity of the defendant would justify the dismissal of a
claim as frivolous. Id. at 640, n. 2. “When
the defense is apparent from the fact of a complaint or the
court's records, courts need not wait and see if the
defense will be asserted in a defensive pleading.”
Id. “Indigence does not create a
constitutional right to the expenditure of public funds and
the valuable time of the courts in order to prosecute an
action which is totally without merit.” Phillips v.
Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984) (citing
Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 825, 828 (10th Cir.
evaluating a complaint under § 1915, a document filed
pro se is to be liberally construed. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). The bare minimum a
plaintiff must set forth in the complaint is found in
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, and explained further in Iqbal and
Twombly. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544 (2007). “A pleading that states a claim for relief
must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). While particularity is not required
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, as it is under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9,
“[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and
conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.'”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555). “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.'” Id. (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570). The court must view the allegations of the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,
consider the allegations of the complaint as true, and accept
all reasonable inferences therefrom. La Grasta v. First
Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir. 2004). In
considering the sufficiency of the complaint, the court
limits its “consideration to the well-pleaded factual
allegations, documents central to or referenced in the
complaint, and matters judicially noticed.”
In this case, Plaintiff again challenges his 2002 conviction
and post-conviction proceedings. He attempts to allege
constitutional claims against state court Judge Thomas
Bateman; privately retained counsel, Kenneth David, Frank
Sheffield, and David Collins; and assistant state attorneys
Owen McCaul and Adam Ruiz. These exact claims have previously
been dismissed with prejudice by this Court and the Northern
District as barred by the statute of limitations and res
judicata; and because Plaintiff could not state a claim.
See e.g., Rolle v. Tallahassee Police Dept. et al,
No. 4:16-425-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla. May 3, 2017) (dismissing
claims against Owen McCaul); Rolle v. Raysor, et
al., No. 5:15-cv-180-Oc-30PRL (M.D. Fla. April 14, 2015)
(dismissing claims against David Collins and Judge Thomas
Bateman); Rolle v. Perry, et al., No.
4:14-cv-340-WS-GRJ (N.D. Fla. July 3, 2014) (dismissing as
time barred claims against Judge Thomas Bateman, Frank
Sheffield, Kenneth David, David Collins, and Adam Ruiz);
Rolle v. Raysor, No. 4:07-cv285-RH/WCS, 2007 WL
2698316 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 12, 2007), aff'd 267 F.
App'x 925 (11th Cir. 2008) (dismissing claims
against Frank Sheffield and Judge Thomas Bateman).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims here are likewise barred.
frivolous is Plaintiff's attempt to add constitutional
claims against the City of Tallahassee based on rulings by
various judges. See e.g., Rolle v. City of
Tallahassee, No. 5:15-cv-462-Oc-30PRL (M.D. Fla.
September 14, 2015) (dismissing as frivolous claim that City
violated his constitutional rights because trial court denied
motion to correct illegal sentence).
has repeatedly failed to heed warnings that sanctions may be
imposed if he continues to abuse the judicial process by
filing frivolous complaints. Indeed, despite the repeated
warnings, Plaintiff filed six new lawsuits in January 2018
all related to his 2002 state court conviction and subsequent
probation violation proceedings. The filing of frivolous
complaints requires the Court to waste valuable judicial
resources that could and should be spent on the many other
meritorious cases pending before the Court. Plaintiff has
filed similar cases over and over despite the Court advising
him numerous times of the ...