Starkey v. United States Department of Treasury et al

Filing 17

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Notice of Constitutional Challenge (Doc. 16) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. On or before Monday, June 27, 2016, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a third amended complaint. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 6/8/2016. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
JAMES ANDREW STARKEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:16-cv-4-Orl-37DAB

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TREASURY; and STATE OF FLORIDA,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Constitutional
Challenge (Doc. 16), filed May 23, 2016.
The Court has previously dismissed two iterations of pro se Plaintiff’s Notice of
Constitutional Challenge—which the Court construes as a complaint—for failure to
comply with the pleading standards set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and
10. (See Docs. 1, 4, 8, 15.) Although Plaintiff’s second amended Notice of Constitutional
Challenge (Doc. 16 (“Notice”)) is compliant with Rule 10, the Court finds that it remains
noncompliant with Rule 8 and, therefore, is due to be dismissed.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court is required to screen prisoner
complaints seeking redress from officers or employees of governmental entities. The
Court “shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint” if it is “frivolous,
malicious,

or fails to

state

a

claim

upon

which

relief

may

be

granted.”

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). As Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking redress from governmental
officials pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Notice is
subject to § 1915A(a) screening.

Plaintiff asserts against Defendants: (1) a plethora of alleged tort violations by
Defendants’ governmental officials; and (2) alleged violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional
rights based on the governmental officials’ failure to comply with Plaintiff’s “basic human
rights, civil rights, due process rights, [and] contract rights concerning [the] Uniform
Commercial Code.” (Doc. 16.) In support, Plaintiff alleges that the governmental officials
“failed and refused to provide Proof of Claim as requested,” “failed and refused to return
[“instruments”] within” a required time frame, and filed a criminal complaint in state court
without authority or a warrant. (Id.) Even construing the nearly incomprehensible Notice
liberally, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), the Court finds that its factual
allegations are fatally insufficient to state a claim for relief. As such, the Notice is due to
be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Amended
Notice of Constitutional Challenge (Doc. 16) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. On
or before Monday, June 27, 2016, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a third amended complaint
that contains sufficient factual allegations to state a claim for relief and is otherwise
compliant with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules. 1 Failure
to do so will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on June 8, 2016.

1

As a reminder, Defendant may access the resources available to pro se litigants
on the Court’s website at http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/forms/forms_policies.htm.
2

Copies:
Counsel of Record
Pro se Party

3