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, law enforcement 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 23, 2014).
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.”
case, Plaintiff again challenges his 2002 conviction and
subsequent probation violation proceedings. He attempts to
allege constitutional claims against state court Judges Kevin
Carroll and James Shelfer, probation officers Emily Glenn and
Sherri West, assistant public defender Michael MacNamara,
assistant state attorney John Campbell, and the City of
Tallahassee. Claims against these same defendants have
previously been dismissed by this Court and the Northern
District for failure to state a claim. See e.g., Rolle v.
Womble et al, 4:17-cv-134-MW-CAS (N.D. Fla. March 31,
2017) (dismissing claims against Michael MacNamara as
frivolous because not a state actor; and finding John
Campbell and Judges Kevin Carroll and James Shelfer immune
from suit); Rolle v. Glenn, 5:15-cv-190-Oc-39PRL
(M.D. Fla. September 14, 2015) (dismissing claims against
probation officer Emily Glenn and her supervisor, Thirris
West as frivolous).
this Court has repeatedly explained that some parties are
immune from § 1983 claims based on their official role.
See Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1172-73 (11th
Cir.1985) (per curiam) (discussing various types of immunity
for those involved in the public litigation process).
Specifically, Plaintiff's claims against Judges Kevin
Carroll and James Shelfer are barred by judicial immunity.
See e.g., Rolle v. Glenn, 4:17-cv-134-MW-CAS (N.D.
Fla. March 31, 2017); see also, Wahl, 773 F.2d at
1172 (“judges are absolutely immune from civil
liability ‘for their judicial acts, even when such acts
rare in excess of their jurisdiction and are alleged to have
been done maliciously or corruptly.'”). Likewise,
his claim against assistant state attorney John Campbell
fails because he is entitled to absolute immunity from
allegations stemming from his function as an advocate.
Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1281
(11th Cir. 1999).
claims against assistant public defender Michael MacNamara
also fail. Plaintiff has been advised in prior cases that
claims against public defenders for their representation of
Plaintiff in his criminal cases cannot go forward because
they are not “state actors” for purposes of
§ 1983 absent a conspiracy with state actors. See
e.g., Rolle v. Glenn, No. 4:17-cv-134-MW-CAS (N.D. Fla.
March 31, 2017); see also, Wahl, 773 F.2d at 1173.
Here, Plaintiff has failed to allege any plausible facts to
support such a conspiracy.
insufficient are Plaintiff's claims that probation
officer Emily Glenn and her supervisor Sherri West violated
his Fourth Amendment rights by submitting false statements
and reports that led to his arrest. See e.g., Rolle v.
Glenn, et al., No. 5.15-cv-190-BJD-PRL (M.D. Fla.
September 14, 2015). According to Plaintiff's
allegations, the facts supporting his arrest were put before
Judge Carroll, who then issued an arrest warrant. Only in
rare circumstances may an arrest pursuant to a judicially
issued warrant amount to a Fourth Amendment violation.
Generally, if facts supporting an arrest are presented to an
independent intermediary, such as a judge, the
intermediary's decision breaks the chain of ...