United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff William Edward Bramlett's Motion
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4) filed
on August 19, 2019. Because Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, the Court must review his
Complaint to determine whether it is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
Upon review of the Complaint, the Court concludes that
Plaintiff has failed to present an actionable claim and that
dismissal of this case is warranted.
who is a detainee in the Florida Civil Commitment Center
(FCCC) in Arcadia, Florida brings this claim as a civil
rights violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
originally filed this case in the Tallahassee Division of the
Northern District of Florida. The case was transferred to the
Tampa Division of the Middle District of Florida and finally
transferred to the Fort Myers Division of the Middle
District. While the Complaint is sparse on facts, it appears
Plaintiff filed a grievance with the FCCC Administration
regarding his transfer to a new dormitory. Plaintiff says he
did not want to move to another dorm, but that other
detainees lied about his desire to move and forged his name
on the request form. Plaintiff states that his grievance in
this regard was not handled in an appropriate manner and
demands to be returned to London dormitory.
federal district court is required to review a civil
complaint filed in forma pauperis and to dismiss any
such complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. Section 1915(e)(2) is a screening process to be
applied sua sponte and at any time during the
proceedings. The mandatory language of 28 U.S.C. § 1915
applies to all proceedings in forma pauperis. The
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that
may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any
time if the court determines that-(A) the allegation of
poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal-(i) is
frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In making the above
determinations, all factual allegations in the complaint must
be viewed as true. Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344,
1347 (11th Cir. 2004). Moreover, the Court must read the
plaintiff's pro se allegations in a liberal
fashion. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
complaint may be dismissed as frivolous under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) where it lacks an arguable basis in law or
fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
A claim is frivolous as a matter of law where, inter
alia, the defendants are immune from suit or the claim
seeks to enforce a right that clearly does not exist.
Id. at 327.
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii) for failure to state a
claim are governed by the same standard as Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mitchell v.
Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1485 (11th Cir. 1997). Under
Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed if the facts as
pleaded do not state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face. See Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544 (2007) (retiring the “no set of facts”
language previously used to describe the motion to dismiss
standard and determining that because the plaintiffs had not
“nudged their claims across the line from conceivable
to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed” for
failure to state a claim). A complaint is also subject to
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) “when its allegations on
their face, show that an affirmative defense bars recovery on
the claim.” Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352,
1357 (11th Cir. 2003); Marsh v. Butler County, Ala.,
268 F.3d 1014, 1022 (11th Cir. 2001).
42 U.S.C. § 1983 imposes liability on one who, under
color of state law, deprives a person “of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To articulate a claim
under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a
defendant deprived him of a right secured under the
Constitution or federal law; and (2) such deprivation
occurred under color of state law. Arrington v. Cobb
County, 139 F.3d 865, 872 (11th Cir. 1998). ...