United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Samuel
Howard's (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 
(“Motion”), filed in conjunction with
Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. . The Court has
carefully considered the Motion and the record in this case,
and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons discussed
below, Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed, and the Motion
is denied as moot.
a pro se litigant, has not paid the required filing
fee and therefore the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e) are applicable here. Section 1915 requires
courts to dismiss a suit “any time  the court
determines that . . . (B) the action or appeal (i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). A pleading in a civil action 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). Although a complaint “does not need detailed
factual allegations, ” it must provide “more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining
that Rule 8(a)(2)'s pleading standard “demands more
than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation”). Nor can a complaint rest on
“‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of
‘further factual enhancement.'”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 557). “[A] complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
“A claim is frivolous when it ‘has little or no
chance of success,' that is, when it appears ‘from
the face of the complaint that the factual allegations are
clearly baseless or that the legal theories are indisputably
meritless.'” Hoang v. DeKalb Housing
Auth., 2014 WL 1028926, at *1 (N.D.Ga. Mar. 19, 2014)
(quoting Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th
Cir. 1993)); see Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
325 (1989) (holding that a claim is frivolous “where it
lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact”).
se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be
liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United
States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). However,
“this leniency does not give a court license to serve
as de facto counsel for a party . . . or to rewrite
an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an
action. GJR Inv., Inc. v. Cty. of Escambia, Fla.,
132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (internal citations
omitted). The Court cannot simply “fill in the
blanks” to infer a claim, Brinson v. Colon,
2012 WL 1028878, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 26, 2012), as “it
is not the Court's duty to search through a
plaintiff's filings to find or construct a pleading that
satisfies Rule 8, ” Sanders v. United States,
2009 WL 1241636, at *3 (N.D.Ga. Jan. 22, 2009); see
Bivens v. Roberts, 2009 WL 411527, at *3 (S.D. Ga. Feb.
18, 2009) (“[J]udges must not raise issues and
arguments on plaintiffs' behalf, but may only construe
pleadings liberally given the linguistic imprecision that
untrained legal minds sometimes employ.” (citing
Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir.
2008)). Even under the relaxed pleading standard afforded to
pro se litigants, see Abele v. Tolbert, 130
Fed.Appx. 342, 343 (11th Cir. 2005), the Complaint fails.
Complaint must be dismissed because it is legally frivolous
and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff attempts to assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging that the correctional facility in which
he is currently housed “is negligent in supplying my
approved medical devices, ” which Plaintiff needs
“to help [him] survive as a parapalegic [sic].”
ECF No.  at 2. As a result, Plaintiff requests that he
receive all of his approved medical devices. Id.
Nothing further is alleged. The Court, however, does not find
any plausible claim for relief from Plaintiff's
allegations. In order to state a claim under § 1983, a
plaintiff must plead that he was (1) deprived of a right; (2)
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and
(3) that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of
state law. See Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,
526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999); Rayburn v. Hogue, 241 F.3d
1341, 1348 (11th Cir. 2001). A plaintiff must offer more than
conclusory and vague allegations to state a section 1983
claim. L.S.T., Inc. v. Crow, 49 F.3d 679, 684 (11th
Cir. 1995). As pled, the Complaint is devoid of actionable
claims. As a result, the Complaint's legal theories, as
presented, are indisputably meritless. See, e.g.,
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328 (a complaint is legally
frivolous when it contains “claims of infringement of a
legal interest which clearly does not exist”);
Davis v. Kvalheim, 261 Fed.Appx. 231, 234 (11th Cir.
2008) (holding that complaint may be dismissed before service
of process where its legal theories are indisputably
it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Complaint, ECF No. , is
2. Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. , is
DENIED AS MOOT.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE
the above-styled case.