United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Charlie
Jackson's Affidavit of Indigency Construed as a Motion to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) filed on
April 16, 2018. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a
pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Complaint
Form (Doc. 1) while detained in the Lee County Jail.
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed without payment of fees.
Prison Litigation Reform Act requires this Court to screen
actions against governmental entities, officers, or employees
of a governmental entity, to determine whether the complaint
is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii)(screening that applies to
prisoner cases seeking to proceed in forma
pauperis). The standards that govern dismissals under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) apply to dismissals
under § 1915A and § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii). Douglas
v. Yates, 535 F.3d 1316, 1319-20 (11th Cir. 2008)
(internal citation omitted). “While a complaint
attacked by a rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to
provide the ‘grounds' of his entitle[ment] to
relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 444, 555 (2007). “Factual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief about the speculative
level.” Id. at 555 (citations omitted).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). Furthermore, dismissal for failure to state a claim
is appropriate if the facts as pled fail to state a claim for
relief that is “plausible on its face.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Plausibility
requires more than “a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. Rather,
“[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that he defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id.
§ 1915 requires dismissal when the legal theories
advanced are “indisputably meritless, ”
Nietzke, 490 U.S. at 327; when the claims rely on
factual allegations which are “clearly baseless,
” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992);
or, when it appears that the plaintiff has “little or
no chance of success, ” Bilal v. Driver, 251
F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001). This Court is cognizant
that it must liberally construe a pro se complaint.
Douglas, 535 F.3d at 1319-20 (internal citation
omitted). This liberal construction does not give a court
license to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order
to sustain an action. GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. of
Escambia, Florida, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998),
overruled on other grounds by, Aschroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009).
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege that (1) the defendant deprived him of a right secured
under the Constitution or federal law, and (2) the
deprivation occurred under color of state law. Bingham v.
Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing
Arrington v. Cobb County, 139 F.3d 865, 872 (11th
Cir. 1998). In addition, a plaintiff must allege and
establish an affirmative causal connection between the
defendant's conduct and the constitutional deprivation.
Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1059
(11th Cir. 2001); Swint v. City of Wadley, Ala., 51
F.3d 988, 999 (11th Cir. 1995); Tittle v. Jefferson
County Comm'n, 10 F.3d 1535, 1541 n.1 (11th Cir.
Plaintiff avers that unknown officers violated his rights
without providing any factual basis to support his claims.
Plaintiff's Complaint does not specify what the named
defendants did to violate his constitutional rights nor set
forth a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.
Instead, Plaintiff's “Statement of Claim”
simply states that he was handcuffed and transported without
an arrest warrant or probable cause to Lee County Jail.
(Doc. 1 at 5). Plaintiff says Detective Alesha Morel
arrested him and charged him with two counts of sexual
activity with a child in violation of Fla. Stat. §
794.011(b). Id. Plaintiff avers that the officers
and judges in Lee County Courts have no jurisdiction over him
because he is a living breathing man distinguished from his
property and title. Id. Even liberally construing
the Complaint, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable
claim under § 1983. As such, Plaintiff's Motion to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis is due to be denied and
his Complaint dismissed with leave to amend.
is cautioned that his amended complaint must comply with the
federal rules of civil procedure. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure requires “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This requirement
ensures that the defendant is given fair notice of what the
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561- 563, S.Ct.
127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (abrogating Conley
v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80
(1957)). To meet this standard, the plaintiff must allege
“more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.
Twombly, 128 S.Ct. at 1965 (citing Papasan v.
Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d
Plaintiff must name as Defendants only those persons who are
responsible for the particular alleged constitutional
violations. Plaintiff should succinctly state what rights
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States have been violated in the section entitled
"Statement of Claim." It is improper for Plaintiff
to merely list constitutional rights or federal rights.
Plaintiff must provide support in the statement of facts for
the claimed violations.
Plaintiff should clearly describe how each named defendant is
involved in the alleged constitutional violation(s) in the
amended complaint. Plaintiff should note that, in civil
rights cases, more than conclusory and vague allegations are
required to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 556-7 (11th
Cir. 1984); Baskin v. Parker, 602 F.2d 1205, 1208
(5th Cir. 1979). Although personal participation is not
specifically required for liability under section 1983, there
must be some causal connection between the defendant named
and the injury allegedly sustained. Sims v. Adams,
537 F.2d 829 (5th Cir. 1976). One cannot be held liable for
the actions and/or omissions of others, but can only be held
responsible if he participated in the deprivation of
Plaintiff's constitutional rights or directed such action
and/or omission that resulted in such deprivation. Finally,
Plaintiff must show specifically how he has been damaged (how
he was harmed or injured by the actions and/or omissions of
it is now
(1) Plaintiff Charlie Jackson's Affidavit of Indigency
Construed as a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2)
(2) Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED
(3) Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of the date of this
Order. Failure to file an amended complaint as directed will
result in the ...