United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
E. MENDOZA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss (“Motion, ” Doc. 25) and Plaintiff's
Response in Opposition (Doc. 26). For the reasons stated
herein, the Motion will be granted.
case arises from an ongoing state court foreclosure action in
the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for
Osceola County, Florida. (Compl., Doc. 1, at 2-3). Plaintiff,
a United States citizen domiciled in Spain, is a defendant in
the underlying state court proceeding, and Defendant is the
presiding state court judge. (Id.). Plaintiff
alleges generally that Defendant violated Plaintiff's
constitutional rights in the state court action, causing
damages to Plaintiff in the form of emotional distress,
litigation costs, and loss of income. (See generally
id.). Specifically, Plaintiff takes issue with the
following actions taken by Defendant in the state court
• Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Sham
Pleadings without a hearing. (Id. at 3-4).
• Setting six monthly case management conferences when
Plaintiff is domiciled in Spain. (Id. at 4).
• Striking as premature Plaintiff's Second Motion to
Strike Sham Pleadings without a hearing. (Id. at 5).
• Advising Plaintiff to hire counsel to represent him.
(Id. at 6).
requests declaratory and injunctive relief as well as
monetary damages. (Id. at 13-14). Defendant moves to
dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 25 at 1).
pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party
may move to dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.” In determining
whether to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court accepts the
factual allegations in the complaint as true and construes
them in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.
See United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260,
1269 (11th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, “the tenet that a
court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in
a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions, ” and
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). Furthermore, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss,
a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.'” Id. (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (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.” Id. Generally, in deciding a motion
to dismiss, “[t]he scope of the review must be limited
to the four corners of the complaint.” St. George
v. Pinellas Cty., 285 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002).
Complaint asserts five separate counts, each of which appear
to confuse what claims may be brought under particular
statutes. However, the Court is obligated to liberally
construe the claims in the Complaint because pro se
litigants are held “to less stringent standards than