Boatman v. Riddle et al

Filing 25

ORDER OF DISMISSAL denying 4 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; dismissing 13 amended complaint without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 12/20/2016. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
RAYVON BOATMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-247-FtM-29CM

DOTTY RIDDLE, Director of
DCF, SARAH SENTER, REBECCA
JACKSON, Clinical Director
of Mental Health, DONALD
SAWYER,
Doctor/Director,
MELINDA MASTERS, Assistant
Clinical
Director,
KATJA
HAASE,
BRIAN
L.
MASONY,
Attorney,
M.
JOHNSON,
Security, DONNA WARD, R.
MCCAWLEY, JOHN DOE LABREDO,
GEO
CARE
GROUP,
INC.,
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
FAMILY SERVICES, Director,
H. JAYNES, M. CARROLL, K.
KANNER, and DANIEL MONTALDI,
Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This case is before the Court upon review of Rayvon L.
Boatman’s (“Plaintiff’s”) pro se amended civil rights complaint
filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 13, filed June 16, 2016).
Plaintiff, a civil detainee at the Florida Civil Commitment Center
(“FCCC”) in Arcadia, Florida, also filed a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (Doc. 4, filed April 11, 2016).
Because Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the
Court must review his amended complaint to determine whether it is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

After

conducting an initial review of the amended complaint, this action
is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.
I.

Complaint 1

Plaintiff is a civil detainee at the Florida Civil Commitment
Center (FCCC) in Arcadia, Florida. 2

He initiated this action on

March 31, 2016 by filing a 43-page civil rights complaint and 28
pages of exhibits in which he generally complained about the
quality of treatment he receives at the FCCC (Doc. 1).

Plaintiff

filed an amended complaint on June 16, 2016 (Doc. 13).

1

All facts are taken from
the attachments in support of
Doc. 1-1).
See Fed. R. Civ.
instrument that is an exhibit
pleading for all purposes.”).

Plaintiff's amended complaint and
the original complaint (Doc. 13;
P. 10(c) (“A copy of a written
to a pleading is a part of the

2

The Florida legislature enacted the Sexually Violent
Predators Act, Florida Statute §§ 394.910-.913, by which a person
determined to be a sexually violent predator is required to be
housed in a secure facility “for control, care, and treatment until
such time as the person’s mental abnormality or personality
disorder has so changed that it is safe for the person to be at
large.” Fla. Stat. § 394.917(2). The Act was promulgated for the
dual purposes “of providing mental health treatment to sexually
violent
predators
and
protecting
the
public
from
these
individuals.”
Westerheide v. State, 831 So. 2d 93, 112 (Fla.
2002); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) (holding that the
Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act did not establish criminal
proceedings, and involuntary confinement pursuant to the Act was
not punitive).

- 2 -

In

his

amended

complaint,

Plaintiff

sues

thirteen

named

individuals, Florida’s Department of Children and Family Services,
the Florida Department of Violent Predator Program Directors, and
at least one “Doe” defendant (Doc. 13 at 1).

Plaintiff claims

that the defendants have conspired to retaliate against him because
of his “legal mind.” Id. at 2, 8-9.

Although they are not attached

to his amended complaint, Plaintiff references numerous grievances
filed while at the FCCC as evidence of the defendants’ animus
towards him.

Generally, Plaintiff’s claims appear to be based

upon his belief that all of the defendants’ actions towards him of
which he did not approve are retaliatory in nature.

However, the

claims are almost impossible to decipher. See discussion infra
Part

III.

In

addition

to

Plaintiff’s

general

claims

of

retaliation, he also asserts that he has not received due process
in disciplinary hearings (id. at ¶¶ 62-80) and that he is receiving
inadequate mental health treatment at the FCCC; both presumably in
retaliation for his legal activity. Id. at ¶¶ 43-61.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for his mental pain and
suffering, punitive damages, compensatory damages, and attorney
fees

and

costs

(Doc.

15

at

27-28).

Plaintiff

also

seeks

compensation for his “unlawful removal from assigned food service
resident work program.” Id. at 28.

- 3 -

II.
A

federal

district

Standard of Review
court

is

required

to

review

a

civil

complaint filed in forma pauperis and to dismiss any such complaint
that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

The mandatory language

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 applies to all proceedings in forma pauperis. 3
Specifically, the section provides:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion
thereof, that may have been paid, the court
shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that-(A)

the allegation of poverty is

(B)

untrue; or

the action or appeal(i)

is
frivolous
malicious;

or

(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).

3

Despite Plaintiff's non-prisoner status, his amended
complaint is subject to initial review under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). See Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th
Cir. 2002) (recognizing that the district court did not err when
it dismissed a complaint filed by a civil detainee for failure to
state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)); see also Calhoun
v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (determining that §
1915(e)(2)(B) is not limited to prisoners, but applies to all
persons proceeding in forma pauperis).

- 4 -

A

complaint

may

be

dismissed

as

frivolous

under

§

1915(e)(2)(B)(i) where it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

A claim is

frivolous as a matter of law where, inter alia, the defendants are
immune from suit or the claim seeks to enforce a right that clearly
does not exist. Id. at 327.

In addition, where an affirmative

defense would defeat a claim, it may be dismissed as frivolous.
Clark v. Georgia Pardons & Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 640 n.2 (11th
Cir. 1990).
The phrase “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted” has the same meaning as the nearly identical phrase in
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Mitchell v. Farcass,
112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997) (“The language of section
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks the language of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), and we will apply Rule 12(b)(6) standards in
reviewing dismissals under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).”). That is,
although

a

complaint

need

not

provide

detailed

factual

allegations, there “must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level,” and the complaint must contain enough facts
to state a claim that is “plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007).
In making the above determinations, all factual allegations
in the complaint must be viewed as true. Brown v. Johnson, 387
F.3d 1344, 1347 (11th Cir. 2004).

- 5 -

Moreover, the Court must read

the plaintiff’s pro se allegations in a liberal fashion. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
III. Analysis
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege that: (1) a violation of a constitutional right or federal
statutory provision; (2) was committed by a person acting under
color of state law. Doe v. Sch. Bd. of Broward County, Fla., 604
F.3d 1248, 1265 (11th Cir. 2010).

To state a First Amendment

retaliation claim under § 1983, Plaintiff must establish that: (1)
his

speech

or

act

was

constitutionally

protected;

(2)

the

defendants’ retaliatory conduct adversely affected the protected
speech;

and

(3)

there

is

a

causal

connection

between

the

retaliatory actions and the adverse effect on the speech. Douglas
v. Yates, 535 F.3d 1316, 1321 (11th Cir. 2008).

Moreover, for a

confined plaintiff to state a cognizable retaliation claim, he
must come forward with more than general attacks on an official’s
motivations. See Robinson v. Boyd, No. 5:03CV25/MMP/MD, 2005 WL
1278136, at *3 (N.D. Fla. May 26, 2005) (citing Crawford-El v.
Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998)); Marsh v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 330
F. App'x 179, 183 (11th Cir. 2009) (affirming district court's
denial of a retaliation claim alleged by an FCCC resident).
may

be

accomplished

by

either

alleging

direct

This

evidence

of

retaliatory intent or by describing “a chronology of events which

- 6 -

may

be

read

as

providing

some

support

for

an

inference

of

retaliation.” McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 18 (1st Cir. 1979).
Plaintiff

generally

claims

that

he

is

being

treated

differently from other FCCC residents in retaliation for filing
numerous

grievances

and

lawsuits.

However,

amended complaint is virtually indecipherable.

as

pleaded,

his

For example, in

his fourth cause of action, “Continued Retaliation,” Plaintiff
asserts:
See Exhibit (7P), dated 5/12 or 5/12/10,
informal grievance, and Exhibit (66B), dated
5/18/10, was in reference to retaliation for
grievances, See Exhibit (71); (Behavioral
Contract), dated 8/25/14, a (90-day) Contract,
instituted upon “(Commending – “to mention as
worthy, Praise)” . . . and instituted to
“(acknowledge)” - )” To admit the existence or
truth of . . . to express gratitude for)” . .
. “(gratitude)” – “(thankfulness)” . . . for
your continued effort in treatment),” having
nothing to do with treatment. And was Private
agreement to Secretly Punish the Plaintiff,
via his mental health treatment, as a tool;
The
defendants
Masters,
Haase,
Jaynes,
Jelarde, Senter, Jackson, Sawyer; each acted
in full knowledge that the agreement meant
transferring of the Plaintiff, unlike any of
the 600-six hundred other similarly situated
residents at (FCCC) 2012-2016 and Continues.
See Exhibits (543), a tracking and personal
recording by the Plaintiff.
Personally, as
directly after each event took Place:
The
individual defendants involved as state mental
health clinical employees, Possessing exact
and detailed knowledge of the acts against the
Plaintiff involving Unprovoked, Punished,
discriminatory
Punitive
action
and

- 7 -

retaliatory abuses for his legal mind, the
Plaintiff.
(Doc. 13 at ¶¶ 20-26).

Although Plaintiff filed this action pro

se, he is still required to plead a complaint that complies with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. GJR Investment, Inc. v.
County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998)
(holding that even in the case of pro se litigants, a court does
not have license to serve as de facto counsel for a party or to
re-write an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an
action), overruled on other grounds by Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d
701, 709 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835,
837 (11th Cir. 1989) (a pro se litigant is subject to a court’s
rules and to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that
a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . ." Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a)(2).

The purpose of Rule 8 is to give notice to the other

party and not to formulate issues or fully summarize the facts
involved. Clausen & Sons, Inc. v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co., 395 F.2d
388, 390 (8th Cir. 1968).
a

complaint

that

does

District courts, when confronted with

not

comply

with

Rule

8(a),

have

been

instructed by the Eleventh Circuit to intervene at the earliest
possible moment and require the plaintiff to re-plead his entire
case. Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465, 1522 (11th Cir. 1991),

- 8 -

abrogated on unrelated grounds by Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem.
Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008).
Plaintiff's amended complaint does not comply with Rule 8.
While he complains that his constitutional rights were violated,
presumably because he was terminated from his job in food service
and transferred to a different housing unit, Plaintiff makes only
general statements and points to numerous unrelated incidents in
which he believes he was treated unfairly while at the FCCC.
Plaintiff’s references to his “legal mind” without any direct
evidence that the defendants’ actions were induced by their desire
to retaliate against him for filing grievances simply do not state
a retaliation claim.

See Akins v. Perdue, 204 F. App'x 839, 843

(11th Cir. 2006) (prisoner failed to state retaliation claim when
he failed to allege any facts from which causal connection could
be reasonably inferred); Brazill v. Cowart, 2011 WL 900721 at *3
(M.D.

Fla.

Mar.

14,

2011)

(prisoner

failed

to

allege

facts

suggesting a causal connection between the transfer and protected
conduct).
In addition, Plaintiff's defendants vary from named employees
at

the

FCCC

Services.

to

Florida’s

Plaintiff

does

Department
not

of

explain

Children
how

any

and

Family

particular

defendants’ actions were unconstitutional, other than speculating
that their general failure to provide him with the job and housing
to which he felt entitled was in retaliation for his numerous

- 9 -

grievances and lawsuits.

The Court will not speculate as to the

nature of each specific defendant’s allegedly unconstitutional
conduct so as to cobble together a viable complaint on Plaintiff's
behalf.

The Supreme Court explains:
While a complaint . . . does not need detailed
factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation
to provide the grounds of his entitlement to
relief
requires
more
than
labels
and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.
Factual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.

Twombly,

550

U.S.

at

545

(internal

citations

and

quotations

omitted).
Finally, the claims raised in the instant complaint appear to
be unrelated to each other.

For example, Plaintiff’s claims of

retaliation are unrelated to the alleged lack of due process he
received at his disciplinary hearings.

Unrelated claims against

different defendants belong in different suits.

If claims are not

related to the same basic issue or incident, then each must be
raised in a separate suit to prevent confusion and to ensure that
Plaintiff pays the required filing fees. See George v. Smith, 507
F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Unrelated claims against different
defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort
of morass that this 50–claim, 24–defendant suit produced but also
to ensure that [plaintiffs] pay the required filing fees[.]”).
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED:

- 10 -

1.

Plaintiff's

motion

for

leave

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis (Doc. 4) is DENIED.
2.

Plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. 13) is DISMISSED

without prejudice to Plaintiff filing new actions which comply
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4

Plaintiff shall not

use the instant case number on any new complaint filed with this
Court.
3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending

motions, close this case, and enter judgment accordingly.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this

20th

day

of December, 2016.

SA: OrlP-4
Copies: Rayvon Boatman
Counsel of Record

4

A review of the PACER case locater indicates that Plaintiff
has filed more than ninety civil cases in federal courts. See
www.pacer.gov. Accordingly, he is well aware of his duty to comply
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A dismissal without
prejudice does not toll any applicable statute of limitation, nor
is it a comment on the validity of any potential claim.

- 11 -