United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
JEROME L. GRIMES, Plaintiff,
M. R. BONNER, FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL and STATE OF FLORIDA, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
B. SMITH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, which I have
construed as a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. 2). For the reasons that follow, I
respectfully recommend that the motion be
denied and this case be dismissed
without leave to amend.
courts may allow an individual to proceed in forma
pauperis if that person declares in an affidavit that he
“is unable to pay [filing] fees or give security
therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Before
determining whether a plaintiff qualifies to proceed in
forma pauperis, the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2), should review the complaint to determine
whether it should be dismissed. Section 1915(e) provides that
a district court may dismiss a case filed in forma
pauperis if it is satisfied that the action is
frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune
defendant. Id. § 1915(e)(2). If the complaint
is deficient, the Court is required to dismiss the lawsuit on
its own authority. See id.
United States Supreme Court has observed that “a
litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the
public ... lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing
frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).
Still, the Supreme Court has cautioned that a case should
only be dismissed as frivolous if it relies on meritless
legal theories or facts that are clearly baseless. See
id. at 327. A complaint should not be dismissed for
failure to state a claim “without granting leave to
amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint
gives any indication that a valid claim might be
stated.” Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171
F.3d 794, 795 (2nd Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted); see also
Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260 & n.5
(11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).
is suing the State of Florida and one of its highway
patrolmen in a handwritten complaint filled with incoherent
allegations (Doc. 1). For example, on the first page the
Under “U.S.C. 28”, “Conspiracy”,
“Invasion of Privacy Terror Intent”, “1980
Airplane Terror Against Boxing Athletes on way to
Poland”, 11/18/72 Jonestown Massacre Extorted as
1978”, “Land, Oil, and Privacy Theft in
Commission of Mass. Murder of my Relatives”
to the complaint is a copy of a Florida Uniform Traffic
Citation showing that Plaintiff was fined $169.00 for
“driving around detour signs/barricades. Road closed -
driving past barricades in a closed roadway” and a copy
of a trespass warning issued the day prior (Doc. 1-1; Doc.
1-2). According to Plaintiff the Highway Patrol Defendant:
…used illegal telephone tooth, illegal dog/deer
tracking device, mentally impaired illegal device better than
polygraph, and illegal micro-video technology Federal Crime,
Invasion of Privacy, and Paramilitary Espionage Enemy
Combatancy technology to plant/install on plaintiff's
person in conspiracy to mass murder plaintiff's family
and plaintiff with oil & land theft …
(Id., at 4-5). This traffic citation and trespass
warning may be the catalyst of Plaintiff's complaint, it
is impossible to be sure, because his allegations are
rambling and for the most part, incomprehensible.
is no stranger to this Court. Twice before he has filed cases
that were ultimately dismissed due to incoherency and the
failure to state a cause of action. See No.
6:15-cv-1955-RBD-GJK; Case No: 6:16-cv-1480-Orl-18TBS.
the most liberal reading test, I find no indication that if
Plaintiff is given an opportunity to amend his complaint,
that he may be able to state a valid claim. Therefore, and
because the Court has already travelled this road with
Plaintiff on two prior occasions, I believe giving Plaintiff
an opportunity to amend his complaint would be futile.
Therefore, I RESPECTFULLY RECOMMEND that the
DENY Plaintiff's motion to proceed
in forma pauperis (Doc. 2);
DISMISS this case without leave ...