United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division
SECOND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHARLES A. STAMPELOS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
an Order was entered in this case by Senior United States
District Judge William Stafford, ECF No. 9, which adopted the
Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 8, entered in February
2019.Judge Stafford's Order, ECF No. 9,
required Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing fee by April 16,
2019. Plaintiff has not done so.
Plaintiff has filed a motion on March 28, 2019, which was not
intelligible, ECF No. 10, and was denied. ECF No. 11.
Plaintiff was reminded once again that he must pay the filing
fee to proceed with this case. Id. Plaintiff was
warned that if he did not pay the fee, a recommendation would
be made to dismiss this case. Id. Additionally,
Plaintiff was reminded that his initial complaint, ECF No. 1,
had already been reviewed and was found deficient. Thus,
Plaintiff was required to submit a second amended complaint
which presented facts showing what each named Defendant did,
or failed to do, that Plaintiff believes caused him harm and
was unconstitutional. ECF No. 11.
April 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
ECF No. 12, and another in forma pauperis motion, ECF No. 13.
Plaintiff's in forma pauperis motion is again
insufficient as Plaintiff does not demonstrate why he cannot
pay the filing fee which he was ordered to pay. See
ECF Nos. 9. 10. Notwithstanding, judicial notice is taken of
other cases which Plaintiff initiated in this Court.
has also filed case numbers: 4:19cv57-WS-CAS,
4:19cv58-MW-CAS, and 4:19cv115-MW-CAS. In case number
4:19cv115, a Report and Recommendation was entered
recommending that Plaintiff's in forma pauperis motion be
denied because it appeared that he had sufficient funds
available to pay the filing fee. However, Plaintiff
subsequently demonstrated that he lacked access to his
personal bank account and could not pay the filing fee. An
Order was entered in that case (which granted Plaintiff in
forma pauperis status and vacated the Report and
Recommendation) advising Plaintiff that similar action would
not be taken in any of Plaintiff's other cases absent the
filing of a specific motion in those cases requesting such
appears that Plaintiff's instant in forma pauperis
motion, ECF No. 13, is likely intended to serve that purpose.
The motion does not clearly do so, but in light of
Plaintiff's other known case, Plaintiff's motion
here, ECF No. 13, should be granted and Plaintiff permitted
to proceed without payment of the filing fee.
granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status, Plaintiff's
second amended complaint may now be reviewed. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. Plaintiff's second amended complaint,
however, is insufficient because it is identical to the
complaint, ECF No. 1, initially filed. Plaintiff does not
include a statement of his claim nor does he identify any
constitutional right which was allegedly violated. ECF No. 12
at 6. Plaintiff also does not request any relief from this
Court. Id. However, based on the lack of factual
allegations which are insufficient to state a claim, no
relief could be granted even if Plaintiff had requested
relief. In short, Plaintiff's complaint does not show
that any named Defendant caused him harm. Plaintiff does not
present facts which show what any Defendant did to Plaintiff.
The factual allegations are nonsensical and do not reveal
that Plaintiff's constitutional rights have been
violated. Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be
dismissed as frivolous.
respectfully RECOMMENDED that the Order
which denied Plaintiff in forma pauperis status, ECF No. 9,
be VACATED and Plaintiff's recent in
forma pauperis motion, ECF No. 13, be
GRANTED such that Plaintiff can proceed with
in forma pauperis status. It is further recommended that
Plaintiff's second amended complaint, ECF No. 12, be
DISMISSED as frivolous, and that all other
pending motions be DENIED. Finally, the
Clerk of Court should be required to note on the docket that
this cause was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
 The Report and Recommendation noted
that Plaintiff's in forma pauperis motion, ECF No. 7,
indicated Plaintiff had over four thousand dollars in his
bank account and, thus, appeared to have access to sufficient
funds with which to pay the filing fee for this case. ECF No.
 Part of the reason for doing so is
that review of Plaintiff's complaints revealed they were
all insufficient as filed, and because Plaintiff was directed
to consider whether or not he could bring all of his claims
in one case which would mean ...