Ridley v. Simmons et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying 23 Motion to extend time; denying 24 Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff to pay filing fee no later than 9/15/2011 or case to be dismissed for failure to prosecute; directing Clerk to close the file now subject to reopening if filing fee is paid by 9/15/2011. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 8/8/2011.(SRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

NATHANIEL RIDLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:11-cv-80-J-32JBT

PAUL SIMMONS, et al.,
Defendants.

NATHANIEL RIDLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:11-cv-81-J-32JBT

ST. VINCENT HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
These cases are before the Court for review of the files. Nathaniel Ridley, proceeding
pro se, filed these two cases in January, 2011 in the Southern District of Georgia, which
court, finding venue was proper here and not there, transferred them to this Court on
January 26, 2011.
The original complaint in the 3:11-cv-80 case appeared to be alleging negligence
arising out of a December 2002 auto accident, claims for which Ridley sued the automobile
owner (Connice Simmons), the driver (Paul Simmons), and their insurer (State Farm).
Ridley’s complaint was accompanied by a notice of removal which reflected that Ridley had
filed the negligence action in state court and was attempting to secure further review of the

state court’s unfavorable decision. Upon review of Ridley’s complaint, notice of removal, and
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order
directing Ridley to file an amended complaint because it was not clear that the Court had
subject matter jurisdiction because Ridley was improperly attempting to remove his own case
from state to federal court. On April 29, 2011, Ridley filed an amended complaint alleging
negligence related to the same auto accident against Paul Simmonds [sic], Connice
Simmonds [sic] and State Farm Insurance Company. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the
amended complaint (and a renewed affidavit of indigency) and, though concerns about
subject matter jurisdiction persisted, the Court granted Ridley in forma pauperis status on
May 5, 2011. The Clerk mailed summonses to Ridley and the Court issued an Order
directing Ridley to perfect service of process no later than July 18, 2011. Ridley did not
return the summonses for execution by the Marshal but instead, three days after the July 18,
2011 deadline, Ridley filed a [second amended] complaint in which he again brings claims
for negligence against Paul Simmons, Connice Simmons, and State Farm, seeking
$1,500,000.00 in damages. Ridley also moved for an extension of time to serve process
(having failed to serve within the time directed by the Court’s previous Order) and filed a new
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Those motions are now before the Court.
In his other case, 3:11-cv-81, Ridley has sued (in his second amended complaint) a
number of doctors, hospitals and medical facilities for their alleged negligence in treating
Ridley’s injuries which resulted from the auto accident and he has further alleged various civil
rights and conspiracy violations. In that case, the Magistrate Judge has issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that Ridley’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
2

be denied as to his claims against the various doctors, but that the motion be granted as to
his claims against the hospitals for alleged medical malpractice. The Magistrate Judge noted
that while some of Ridley’s underlying claims may not be “baseless” within the meaning of
the in forma pauperis statute, his claims were likely untimely under the relevant statutes of
limitations and repose; he exhibited a “malicious” element, given the number of defendants
named and types of claims raised; and he failed to demonstrate compliance with pre-suit
medical malpractice requirements under Florida law. With benefit of the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is now
before the Court.
In both cases, the Magistrate Judge has recounted Ridley’s previous filing history with
this Court and state courts, filings which are all related to this same 2002 auto accident and
resulting injuries. Ridley’s earlier federal cases were dismissed when he failed to pay any
filing fee after his in forma pauperis motions were denied. See Ridley v. State Farm Ins. Co.,
Case No. 3:07-cv-1038-20MCR (M.D. Fla. Jul. 14, 2008) (Doc. 8, order of dismissal of case
against State Farm, Paul Simmons and Connice Simmons); Ridley v. Stewart, Case No.
3:07-cv-1173-16JRK (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2008) (Doc. 15, order of dismissal of case for civil
rights violations and conspiracy brought against various doctors and lawyers).

The

Magistrate Judge has also described Ridley’s unsuccessful attempts to secure relief for
these same or similar claims in state court.
The Court has a broad grant of discretion under the in forma pauperis statute (28
U.S.C. §1915) to determine which litigants should have their filing fees and court costs
assumed by the public. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989); Clark v. Ga.
3

Pardons and Paroles Bd, 915 F.2d 636, 639 (11th Cir. 1990). Even if a complaint states a
cause of action, it may still be dismissed as frivolous under the in forma pauperis statute in
certain circumstances, such as where an obvious affirmative defense would defeat the
action. Clark, 915 F.2d at 640. See also, Sgro v. U.S. Gov’t, No. 6:09-cv-1793-Orl-18DAB,
2010 WL 309533, *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2010) (collecting cases where in forma pauperis
status was denied based on various affirmative defenses).
In each of the two cases before the Court, Ridley has now filed second amended
complaints and has therefore been given ample opportunity to try to state a non-frivolous
cause of action. In these circumstances, where nearly identical suits were dismissed by this
Court over three years ago, where Florida’s statutes of limitations and repose presents a bar
to some or all of Ridley’s claims, where Ridley has not demonstrated compliance with
Florida’s presuit medical malpractice screening requirements, where Ridley seems to be
improperly pursuing federal review of state court decisions, and where there is a malicious
element to some of his claims, the Court finds its discretion would not be best exercised by
permitting either of these cases to go forward at the expense of the taxpayers. See Sgro,
2010 WL 309533; Saussy v. Porter, No. CV401-305, 2011 WL 683964, *1 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 3,
2011) (dismissing case under in forma pauperis statute for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies). The Court therefore denies Ridleys’ motion to extend the time to serve process
(Doc. 23) and the renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 24) filed in
3:11-cv-80 and also denies the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) filed
in 3:11-cv-81. If Ridley wishes to further attempt to prosecute either of these actions, he will
have to pay the $350.00 filing fee in each case to do so. The filing fees must be paid to the
4

Clerk no later than September 15, 2011 or these cases will be dismissed for failure to
prosecute. The Clerk is directed to close these files now, subject to reopening if the filing
fees are paid.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 8th day of August, 2011.

s.
Copies:
Honorable Joel B. Toomey
United States Magistrate Judge
pro se plaintiff

5