Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robinson v. Under the Court's Back Round My History

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division

July 18, 2019

PHYLLIS D. ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
v.
UNDER THE COURT'S BACK ROUND MY HISTORY, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          LESLIE R. HOFFMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

         This 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.

         I. BACKGROUND.

         On June 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.

         On June 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.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

         The 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).[1] 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.” Id.

         A 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 (1989).

         III. ANALYSIS.

         Upon a 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 Rule ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.