United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT AS FRIVOLOUS AND
BARBER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court sua sponte on
Plaintiff's pro se amended complaint, filed on
December 2, 2019. (Doc. # 12). After reviewing the amended
complaint, court file, and the record, the Court finds as
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). “Although Rule 8(a) does not require
‘detailed factual allegations,' it does require
‘more than labels and conclusions'; a
‘formulaic recitation of the cause of action will not
do.'” Young v. Lexington Ins. Co., No.
18-62468, 2018 WL 7572240, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2018),
report and recommendation adopted, No. 18-62468-CIV,
2019 WL 1112274 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2019) (quoting Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). As
Plaintiff in this case is proceeding pro se, the
Court more liberally construes the pleadings. Alba v.
Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2018). However,
a pro se plaintiff must still conform with
procedural rules and the Court does not have “license
to act as de facto counsel” on behalf of a
pro se plaintiff. United States v. Padgett,
917 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th Cir. 2019).
has filed a civil complaint against the United States Navy,
Charlotte County Sheriff's Office, Charlotte County,
North Port Police Department, “Lee County (FBI, DEA,
CIA, and LCSO), ” “Unknown Hackers, ”
“Unknown Verbal Conjecture, ” “Unknown
Invisible Laser Torture, ” and “Unknown
Stalkers.” In her amended complaint, although it is not
clear, it appears that Plaintiff alleges that various crimes
and torts have been committed against her arising from a
medical device was implanted into her body that is used to
track her movements and cause her pain.
review, the Court finds that the amended complaint is
woefully inadequate and cannot support a cause of action
against any of the Defendants. Initially, the Court finds
that the amended complaint is essentially incomprehensible.
It does not place Defendants on notice of the actual claims
lodged against them because Plaintiff never mentions or
identifies any causes of action in the amended complaint
other than a bare reference to “negligence” on
the first page. Presuming that Plaintiff proceeds under
§ 1983 based on the boxes checked on the initial form
complaint (Doc. # 1), even when liberally construing the
facts and narrative statements that Plaintiff included with
her amended complaint, there is no factual basis to support
her claims. Plaintiff has failed to provide a “short
and plain” statement of the facts. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8. Instead, the amended complaint consists of
“a rambling series of incomprehensible
allegations.” See Beekman v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg.
Corp., No. 16-81477-CIV-MARRA, 2017 WL 7733274, at *2
(S.D. Fla. Nov. 2, 2017) (internal quotation omitted). The
paragraphs are overly long, each of them containing a
“confusing combination of facts, legal analysis, and
bare accusations.” See Thomason v. Ala. Home
Builders Licensure Board, 741 Fed.Appx. 638, 641 (11th
Cir. 2018). It is not clear which Defendants are responsible
for which acts or omissions, to the extent that any acts or
omissions are even alleged. Plaintiff further fails to
identify any constitutional violations. Because Plaintiff has
failed to place Defendants on notice of the claims against
them or advance any plausible claim upon which relief can be
granted, her amended complaint must be dismissed.
a pro se plaintiff “must be given at least one
chance to amend the complaint before the district court
dismisses the action with prejudice, ” unless amendment
is futile. Bank v. Pitt, 928 F.2d 1108, 1112 (11th
Cir. 1991). A district court may dismiss a complaint sua
sponte if the complaint is patently frivolous.
See Guthrie v. United States Gov't, No.
17-80390-MIDDLEBROOKS, 2017 WL 5479877, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar.
31, 2017) (internal citations omitted); Morris v.
Bush, No. 1:07-cv-00187-MP-AK, 2008 WL 4525016, at *1
(N.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2008). “A complaint is frivolous
‘where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact.'” Guthrie, 2017 WL 5479877, at *2
(quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
review of the amended complaint shows that Plaintiff's
allegations are patently frivolous, completely irrational,
and wholly incredible. Because the allegations are frivolous
and any amendment would be futile, this action should be
dismissed with prejudice. See Gary v. United States
Gov't, 540 Fed.Appx. 916, 916-18 (11th Cir. 2013)
(affirming the sua sponte dismissal of complaint
with prejudice where the plaintiff sued a number of
high-level government officials and intelligence agencies,
alleging that they had implanted microchips into her body
that were “used to conduct biomedical research
regarding her reproductive system, to track her movements,
and to cause her pain”); Guthrie, 2017 WL
5479877, at *2-3 (sua sponte dismissing complaint
with prejudice where the plaintiff sued the United States
government, along with other parties, for committing crimes
and torts against him over a thirteen year period, including
allegations that the government conspired to “burgle
his home, drug him, and install surveillance”);
Morris, 2008 WL 4525016, at *1 (sua sponte
dismissing complaint with prejudice where the plaintiff sued
government officials, including Senators Hillary Clinton and
Barack Obama, for “stalking, slander, domestic abuse,
and corruption of blood” by blocking his college
application and fraudulently obtaining student loans in the
it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
Plaintiffs amended complaint (Doc. # 12) is dismissed with
Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and
deadlines and thereafter close this case.