United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Panama City Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
case, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is now before
the court on Plaintiff's second amended complaint (ECF
No. 19). Leave to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted
(ECF No. 5).
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court may
dismiss this case if satisfied that the action “(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)(B). The language in this subsection
“tracks the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), ” and thus dismissals for failure to state a
claim are governed by the same standard as Rule 12(b)(6).
Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir.
1997). The allegations of the complaint are taken as true and
are construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.
Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 120 F.3d 1390,
1393 (11th Cir. 1997). To survive § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),
“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quotation and
citation omitted). A claim is plausible on its face where
“the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
(citation omitted). Plausibility means “more than a
sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. “Where a complaint
pleads facts that are merely consistent with a
defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.”
Id. (quotation and citation omitted). In civil
rights cases, more than “mere conclusory notice
pleading” is required, and a complaint is subject to
dismissal “as insufficient where the allegations it
contains are vague and conclusory.” Gonzalez v.
Reno, 325 F.3d 1228, 1235 (11th Cir. 2003) (quotation
and citation omitted).
names as Defendants the “Bay County Government, ”
one of its commissioners, several county judges, the mayor of
Panama City, Bay County Code Enforcement, the director of the
Gulf Consortium, and the Florida State Hospital. His
complaint amounts to a litany of allegations stemming from an
alleged search and seizure of his property, criminal charges
being raised against him, his civil commitment, and the
“BP oil spill” catastrophe.
allegations include the following. He states that Defendants
ignored his repeated pleas for help during the BP oil spill
and that they took from him all his personal property
including millions of dollars in intellectual property
stemming from inventions related to the oil spill. He alleges
that Defendants ruled unfavorably against him in court,
violated his rights by telling him he had to put his words in
writing, and that they prevented him from speaking about his
inventions in the courtroom. He claims Defendants violated
his rights by illegally entering on his posted property,
destroying a wall in the process, and taking pictures of
signs from inside his property. He provides that his public
defender refused to accept evidence in his defense, refused
to file a motion for reduction of bond, and ordered his
psychiatric evaluation. He indicates he was committed to the
Florida State Hospital, where he was not allowed to contact
his attorney, was placed under constant threat of forced
medication, was forced to use the bathroom on the floor, and
was constantly threatened and attacked by other inmates
without staff intervention.
Plaintiff states the following:
Increased pain and suffering due to medical conditions by
loss of wages by putting me on a repeating paper factory from
computer to paper computer to paper, knowing I have a
Violated my constitutional rights by finding in favor of the
county that return to my property took my signs and my last
inventions which consisted of the oil spill inventions, nine
in total, and all of my tools and properties, allowing them
to get on top of my house, which resulted in holes in my roof
that is the result of the condition I'm in right now.
Code enforcement damaged my home by putting their foot
through my roof in five different places. When they were on
my house painting over signs of protest sign painted over was
May 7, 2013 Bay County commission homepage items L public
Florida state hospital would not allow me to contact abuse
line when I witnessed a man that had his eye [put or poked]
out by another patient and it was a game to the select group
to walk by this individual and slap him as hard as they could
on the side of his face.
I lost my job because of the oil spill and they falsified
records at the GCCF and then again at the deep water horizon
[writing] stuff on the papers that I did not say, allowing
them to seize my BP money.
(ECF No. 19 at 8, ¶11; at 9, ¶15; at 12, ¶29;
at 14, ¶19; and at 15, ¶2).
Plaintiff leaves blank the “Statement of Claims”
section of the complaint, he fails to claim what
constitutional or other rights were allegedly violated,
although in the body of the complaint he indicates violations
of the First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendments. Plaintiff also
leaves blank the “Relief Requested” section of
the complaint, thus failing to indicate what form of relief
he seeks from the court.
Plaintiff is now on his second amended complaint, his claims
remain a haphazard arrangement of facts and wide-ranging
events. As such, the complaint constitutes a “shotgun
pleading” with claims and allegations that are vague,
conclusory and improperly commingled. See Weiland v. Palm
Beach City Sherriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1320
(11th Cir. 2015) (identifying, among other types of shotgun
pleadings, those which are “replete with conclusory,
vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any
particular cause of action”). A complaint does not
“suffice if it tenders naked assertion[s] devoid of
further factual enhancement.” Allaben v.
Howanitz, 579 Fed.Appx. 716, 718 (11th Cir. 2014)
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Plaintiff's
allegations suggest a conspiracy involving county
commissioners, law enforcement officials, and judges, but
such a far-reaching conspiracy is completely without factual
support in the complaint. A complaint containing conclusory,
vague, and general allegations of conspiracy will be
dismissed as insufficient. Bendiburg v. Dempsey, 909
F.2d 463, 468 (11th Cir. 1990); Arnold v. Board of
Education of Escambia County, Alabama, 880 F.2d 305, 309
n.2 (11th Cir. 1989); Kearson v. Southern Bell Telephone
& Telegraph Co., 763 F.2d 405, 407 (11th Cir. 1985).
The complaint must demonstrate that the ...