United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
PHYLLIS D. ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
UNDER THE COURT'S BACK ROUND MY HISTORY, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
R. HOFFMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:
cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the
following motion filed herein:
MOTION: APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT
WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS (Doc. No. 2)
FILED: June 20, 2019
THEREON it is RECOMMENDED
that the motion be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
20, 2019, Plaintiff Phyllis D. Robinson filed a complaint
against “Under the Court's back round my
history.” Doc. No. 1. On June 24, 2019, she filed a
supplemental notice to the complaint, which appears to add
additional allegations and includes a list of state court
criminal cases against her. Doc. No. 3. In conjunction with
the complaint, Robinson also filed an Application to Proceed
in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long
Form), which has been construed as a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis. Doc. No. 2. The motion to proceed in
forma pauperis was referred to the undersigned.
26, 2019, I issued a Report and Recommendation recommending
that the Court dismiss Robinson's complaint and deny
without prejudice the motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. Doc. No. 7. I recommended that the Court
permit Robinson leave to file an amended complaint.
Id. at 5. Before the Court ruled on the Report and
Recommendation, Robinson filed several additional documents,
which were docketed as “notices.” Doc. Nos. 8-11.
Based on these filings, I withdrew my prior Report and
Recommendation and stated that I would issue a second Report
and Recommendation on the motion to proceed in forma
pauperis in consideration of these additional filings.
Doc. No. 12.
STANDARD OF REVIEW.
Court must conduct a two-step inquiry when a plaintiff files
a complaint and seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. First, the Court must evaluate the
plaintiff's financial status and determine whether she is
eligible to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1). Second, once the Court is satisfied that
plaintiff is a pauper, the Court must review the complaint
pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) and dismiss the complaint if
the action is frivolous or malicious, the complaint fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, or the
complaint seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. Id. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). A complaint is frivolous within the
meaning of § 1915(e)(2)(b) if it “lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). To avoid
dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, the allegations must show plausibility. Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). “Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
pro se complaint should be construed leniently, but
a court does not have “license . . . to rewrite an
otherwise deficient pleading [by a pro se litigant]
in order to sustain an action.” GJR Invs. v. Cty.
of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998),
overruled on other grounds by Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662.
Moreover, a pro se litigant “is subject to the
relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d
835, 837 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863
review of Robinson's financial status as set forth in her
application, I first find that she is a pauper and eligible
to proceed in forma pauperis. The next question is
whether Robinson has sufficiently alleged a claim for relief
that is not frivolous. As noted in my prior Report and
Recommendation, her complaint is largely incomprehensible-she
does not allege a specific cause of action and appears to be
asking the Court to review her criminal background history
that is available on the internet. Doc. No. 7; see
Doc. No. 1, at 2. The first supplemental notice also does not
include a specific cause of action, it merely recites random
facts pertaining to an alleged incident at “solid waste
at Emergency Advance.” Doc. No. 3. The supplemental
notice also includes a “Cases by Name Listing Report,
” which lists without any explanation what appears to
be three criminal cases filed by the State of Florida against
Robinson. Id. at 2. Accordingly, I found that the
complaint was due to be dismissed because (1) the complaint
does not comply with the pleading requirements of Federal