United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Ocala Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
R. LAMMENS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
action grew out of pro se Plaintiff's alleged wrongful
arrest in April 2015 and his subsequent month-long
incarceration in the Marion County Jail, following which the
charges against him were dropped. Plaintiff filed a complaint
against various defendants under several theories, for which
he now seeks $200, 000 in damages. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff moves
the Court to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). By prior
order, the Court conducted a frivolity review of the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and granted
Plaintiff until November 19, 2019 to file an amended
complaint. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff has failed to file an amended
complaint, and the time for doing so has expired. For the
following reasons, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. 2) should be denied and the complaint (Doc. 1)
should be dismissed.
individual may be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis if he
declares in an affidavit that he “is unable to pay such
fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1). However, before a plaintiff is permitted to
proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is obligated to review
the complaint to determine whether it is frivolous,
malicious, “fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted[, ]” or . . . “seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” Id. § 1915(e)(2). If the
complaint is deficient, the Court is required to dismiss the
suit sua sponte. Id.
Plaintiff lists a number of purported claims in the style of
his case,  the complaint only addresses claims under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleges no facts in connection with
the other claims. Plaintiff alleges that the Circuit Court of
the Fifth Judicial Circuit, the State of Florida, the Marion
County Sherriff's Office, Deputy Jason Laborde, the
Marion County Jail, Judge Lisa Herndon, and David R.
Ellspermann (the Clerk of Court) have all deprived him of
rights under the color of law. As the Court previously
explained, Plaintiff's claims against Judge Herndon are
barred by judicial immunity. Simmons v. Conger, 86
F.3d 1080, 1085 (11th Cir. 1996). Likewise, Plaintiff's
claims against the Marion County Sheriff's Office, the
Marion County Jail, and the Circuit Court of the Fifth
Judicial Circuit are improper because these Defendants are
not proper parties to this proceeding. See Brown v.
Jones, No. 4:16cv777, 2017 WL 2783988 (N.D. Fla. June
26, 2017) (determining that the Florida Fifth District Court
of Appeal and Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit
are not suable entities); Boeji v. Hillsborough Cty.
Jail, No. 8:12-cv- 2543-T17TBM, Doc. 3, (M.D. Fla. Nov.
14, 2012) (concluding that a county jail and a sheriffs
department are not proper defendants). And to the extent that
Plaintiff seeks to proceed under §1983 against the State
of Florida, his claims would be barred by the Eleventh
Amendment. Grimes v. Florida, No. 6:14-cv-244, 2014
WL 1331045, at *5-6 (M.D. Fla. April 1, 2014) (dismissing a
§ 1983 claim against the State of Florida because of
Eleventh Amendment immunity).
Plaintiff has failed to allege facts containing sufficient
allegations to show that the remaining Defendants, Deputy
Jason Laborde and David R. Ellspermann, personally
participated in the alleged constitutional violations under
§ 1983. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Reno, 325 F.3d
1228, 1234 (11th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs complaint solely
contains a narrative of what happened to him after his arrest
in 2015, and fails to allege what specific misconduct each of
the individual defendants personally participated
in. Id. Indeed, the complaint is completely devoid
of allegations as to any actions taken (or not taken) by the
reasons stated above, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that
Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.
2) be DENIED, and the Complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED.
 Within 14 days after being served with
a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may file
written objections to the Report and Recommendation's
factual findings and legal conclusions. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(3); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B); Local Rule 6.02. A party's failure to file
written objections waives that party's right to challenge
on appeal any unobjected-to factual finding or legal
conclusion the district judge adopts from the Report and
Recommendation. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
 In the style of his case, Plaintiff
also included FDCPA violations (presumably the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692), violations
of oaths of office, false arrest, cruel ...