United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
SHAQUAN W. PARKER, Plaintiff,
STACY M. BUTTERFIELD, POLK COUNTY FLORIDA CLERK AND COURT AND COMPTROLLER, and THE HONORABLE JUDGE MICHAEL E. RAIDEN, 10TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER P. TUITE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
me are the Plaintiffs Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Application)
(Doc. 2), as well as the Plaintiffs Complaint for
Violation of Civil Rights (Complaint) against Defendants
Stacy M. Butterfield, in her official capacity as Polk County
Clerk of Court and Comptroller (Clerk Butterfield), and
Michael E. Raiden, in his official capacity as Circuit Judge
for Florida's Tenth Judicial Circuit (Judge Raiden) (Doc.
1). For the reasons set forth below, I recommend that both
the Plaintiffs Application, which I construe as a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, and his Complaint be
dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff is a 26-year-old resident of Mulberry, Florida,
with at least a high-school education. (Doc. 2 at 5). At
present, he is employed at Max Pak and grosses roughly $1,
900 a month. Id. at 2. He reports expenses totaling
$1, 400 a month, including $100 for recreation and
entertainment, $150 for his girlfriend's "personal
items" and his own "products, " and $390 for a
car payment and insurance. (Doc. 2 at 4- 5). Notwithstanding
the latter claim of a car expense, the Plaintiff
affirmatively declined in his Application to identify any
specifics regarding that automobile, including its value.
Id. at 3.
Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks relief against the Defendants
under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 18 U.S.C. §
1001,  and the Fourteenth Amendment for
"illegal and malice [sic] conduct and activities"
occurring from 2013-2015 during all criminal and civil
proceedings conducted in the state courthouse in Bartow,
Florida. (Doc. 1 at 3-4). In particular, the Plaintiff
The facts underlying . . . [my] claim is that illegal &
malice conduct and activities occurred in the 10th Judicial
Circuit courthouse that was clear and elaborate that still
goes unaccounted for with no investigation. All illegal
alterations caused undue hardship, false incarcerations,
false convictions and violations of due process, pain and
suffering and punitive losses all with Michael E. Raiden
presiding judge. And also protecting an opposing party by
spoil [ation of] evidence and hideing [sic] and altering
Plaintiff requests $12 million in damages as well as the
implementation of "strict checks and balances... to
enforce accountability amongst court house [sic] officials to
ensure public safety." Id. at 5.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court "may
authorize the commencement, prosecution, or defense of any
suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal
therein, without prepayment of fees or security
therefor" upon a showing of indigency by affidavit. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
application to proceed in forma pauperis is filed,
the district court must review the case and dismiss the
complaint sua sponte if it determines 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. 28 U.S.C. §
for failure to state a claim in this context is governed by
the same standard as dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Bravo v. Loor-Tuarez,
___ F. App'x ___, 2018 WL 1168356, at *2
(11th Cir. 2018). As such, "[t]o avoid dismissal, the
'complaint must contain sufficient factual matter ... to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'" Gates v. Khokhar, 884 F.3d 1290,
1296 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). "A complaint is plausible on
its face when it contains sufficient facts to support a
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged." Id. The plausibility
standard requires "more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully." Franklin v.
Curry, 738 F.3d 1246, 1251 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). In evaluating a plaintiffs
complaint under this standard, the court must accept all
well-pleaded factual allegations as true and construe them in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jam v.
Nunez, 878 F.3d 1268, 1271-72 (11th Cir. 2018). The
court, however, affords "no presumption of truth to
legal conclusions and recitations of the basic elements of a
cause of action." Franklin, 738 F.3d at 1248 n.
1 (citations omitted).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also provide that a court
must dismiss an action "[i]f the court determines at any
time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). Indeed, "[f]ederal courts
'are obligated to inquire into subject-matter
jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be
lacking.'" Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173,
1179 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting Galindo-Del Valle v.
Attorney Gen., 213 F.3d 594, 599 (11th Cir. 2000)).
while pro se pleadings are to be construed
liberally, the courts are not to serve as de facto
counsel for pro se litigants, nor are they to
"rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to
sustain an action." GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cty. of
Escambia,132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998),
overruled on ...