United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Defendant Mandy Hines' Motion to Dismiss
Amended Complaint (Doc. 25). Plaintiff George Metz never
went to the County Administration Building in Desoto County,
Florida to investigate a “no recording” sign.
Inside, a County employee approached and told Metz to leave.
So Metz walked into a hallway, where Hines
“informed” Metz “that she wanted [him] out
of the building.” (Doc. 24 at 4). At some point, the
police arrived. And Hines told the police Metz “should
be punched in the throat.” (Doc. 24 at 4).
is the County Administrator. Metz brings a 42 U.S.C. §
1983 action against Hines in her individual capacity.
According to Metz, Hines violated his First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights. Specifically, she “acted under color
of state law by using the trespass statute to remove [him]
from” the Administration Building. (Doc. 24 at 4).
operative pleading is the Amended Complaint. (Doc. 24). A few
weeks ago, the Court dismissed Metz's original complaint
because it appeared the copy on the docket was incomplete.
complaint must recite “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “To 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.'”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). A facially plausible claim allows a “court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Pleadings
must contain “more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Amended Complaint is insufficient, so it is dismissed. Metz,
however, will have one last chance to amend.
start, Hines' argument that these factual allegations
cannot state a claim are well taken. The only factual
allegations against Hines are that she wanted him out of the
Administration Building and told a police officer Metz should
be punched in the throat. Taken as true, those facts alone
are likely not enough to support the alleged claims. In
short, the barebones allegations do nothing to state
plausible claims for the general and abstract constitutional
violations alleged. See Dalrymple v. Reno, 334 F.3d
991, 996 (11th Cir. 2003). While held to a lesser standard, a
pro se complaint must still plead some facts to
support a facially plausible claim. E.g.,
Gilliam v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs,
2:16-cv-255-FtM-29UAM, 2019 WL 1383156, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar.
27, 2019). When amending, Metz should provide enough facts to
put Hines on notice of the basic facts supporting the claims.
the Court looked past these inadequacies, however, the
Amended Complaint should be dismissed because Hines has