United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
G. COOKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER is before me on five Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs Complaint (“Motion”) (ECF No. 20). On
March 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint (ECF No.
1). On March 30, 2018, the instant Motion was filed.
Subsequently, at least six other Defendants have filed three
Motions to Dismiss. See ECF Nos. 29, 41, 42. While
those three Motions to Dismiss are not yet ripe, Plaintiff
has not responded to the instant Motion-despite filing five
Motions for Clerks Entry of Default (ECF Nos. 30-34) and four
Motions for Default Judgment (ECF Nos. 37-40) on the same day
his response to Defendants' Motion was due. I have
reviewed Plaintiffs filings and the relevant legal authority.
I also note that Plaintiff has filed two previous complaints
which are exceedingly similar to the instant Complaint.
See Patterson v. Miami-Dade Cty., et al., No.
18-cv-20241-UU; Patterson v. Miami-Dade Cty., et
al., No. 18-20821-CMA. Both of Plaintiffs previous
complaints were dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. See UU ECF No. 36; CMA
ECF No. 9. For the reasons provided herein, Plaintiffs
Complaint must be dismissed once again for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted and Defendants'
Motion is due to be granted.
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dismiss a
case when the plaintiff fails to comply with procedural rules
or a court order.” Hanna v. Fla., 599
Fed.Appx. 362, 363 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P.
41(b)). Local Rule 7.1(c) provides that failing to respond to
a motion within fourteen days may be deemed sufficient cause
for granting the motion by default. Plaintiffs Complaint is
therefore due to be dismissed as to the five Defendants who
filed the instant Motion on that basis alone.
addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 mandates that a
pleading which states a claim for relief must contain
“a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction, ” as well as “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1)-(2). The
facts pleaded in a complaint must state a claim for relief
that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Further, the “short and plain
statement of the claim” in the complaint must be
sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be
liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United
States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). However,
the leniency shown to pro se litigants “does
not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a
party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order
to sustain an action.” GJR Invs. v. Cnty. of
Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (citation
omitted), overruled on other grounds, as recognized by
Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 709 (11th Cir. 2010).
“While the pleadings of pro se litigants are
‘liberally construed, ' they must still comply with
procedural rules governing the proper form of
pleadings.” Hopkins v. Saint Lucie County School
Bd, 399 F. App'x. 563, 565 (11th Cir. 2010)
(unpublished) (citations omitted).
Complaint does not contain “a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Although the 54-page
Complaint contains numerous numbered paragraphs, they do not
collectively establish, or put any Defendant on notice, of
any viable causes of action Plaintiff intends to pursue.
See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. While longer than both
of his previous complaints, the instant Complaint is nearly
identical to the one filed in No. 18-20821-CMA. In that case,
Judge Altonaga based her dismissal on Plaintiff's failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
specifically that Plaintiff had not put forth plausible facts
supporting a conspiracy, Plaintiff had failed to adequately
allege Defendants' actions were discriminatory, and that
Plaintiff's Complaint amounted to a classic shotgun
pleading. Similar arguments were raised in the various
Motions to Dismiss filed in the instant case. See
CMA ECF No. 9.
instant Complaint, Plaintiff again names the same 55
Defendants, including his ex-girlfriend Ericka Medina, her
attorneys, eight state court judges, Miami-Dade County State
Attorney and five Assistant State Attorneys, and a myriad of
others, including financial institutions, their employees,
and NFL insurance plans. In his Complaint, Plaintiff again
claims violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), 18 U.S.C.
§ 241, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, 18 U.S.C. § 1344, 4th
Amendment, 5th Amendment, 8th Amendment, 13th Amendment, and
14th Amendment. See generally, Compl. He again
appears to allege a conspiracy to deprive him of his
constitutional rights purportedly related to Medina's
state court action for child support against Plaintiff,
wherein Medina alleged Plaintiff is the biological father of
her child. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. While
Plaintiff has made an attempt to cure the defect of a shotgun
pleading by separating his causes of action by Defendant, the
ultimate facts alleged are essentially the same. Compare,
e.g., CMA ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 59, 61, 62, 63, 64
with ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 62, 71, 72, 73, 74
(paragraphs are identical). There are some slight
differences, such as Plaintiff adding in more phrases such as
“meeting of the minds” “to conspire to
deprive the Plaintiff of his constitutional rights.”
ECF No. 1, ¶ 75; see also Id. at ¶¶
66, 83, 94, 105, 126. However, such phrases are conclusory
legal statements unsupported by facts that would amount to a
constitutional violation or a conspiracy to commit
constitutional violations. “[T]he Federal Rules do not
require courts to credit a complaint's conclusory
statements without reference to its factual context.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 686.
even under the lenient pleading standard afforded to pro
se litigants, I find that Plaintiff's Complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and
should be dismissed.
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's
Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without
prejudice, meaning Plaintiff may file an
amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of
this Order, if, and only if he is able to allege
facts that cure the pleading deficiencies outlined above. All
pending motions, if any, are DENIED as
moot. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this