Smith v. History of Ola Mae Maddox et al

Filing 2

ORDER dismissing case Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 5/9/2016. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

RICHARD JEROME SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:16-cv-772-Orl-37DAB

HISTORY OF OLA MAE MADDOX, et
al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER
This cause is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Complaint
(“Complaint,” Doc. 1).

Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Brevard County Jail and

proceeding pro se. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or filed a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis in this action. For the reasons stated herein, the Complaint will be
dismissed.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915A(a), the Court is obligated to screen such a
prisoner civil rights complaint as soon as practicable. On review, the Court is required
to dismiss the complaint (or any portion thereof) under the following circumstances:
(b)

Grounds for Dismissal.--On review, the court shall identify
cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the
complaint, if the complaint-(1)

is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or

(2)

seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.

28 U.S.C. §1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (“[n]otwithstanding 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 . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous or
malicious.”). 1 Additionally, the Court must read a plaintiff's pro se allegations in a liberal
fashion. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
II.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff has brought his case against several Defendants and alleges that his
constitutional rights were violated. (Doc. 1 at 4). However, Plaintiff's allegations are
virtually unintelligible, as the Court is unable to discern the basis upon which Plaintiff
claims entitlement to relief under section 1983. See Toliver v. California Department of
Corrections, No. C00-3501 CRB (PR), 2000 WL 1456950, at *1 (N.D. Cal. September
28, 2000) ("A claim or complaint that is totally incomprehensible may be dismissed as
frivolous because it is without an arguable basis in law.").
In fact, Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to state a cause of action under
section 1983.

Nowhere does Plaintiff assert identifiable causes of action or make

coherent factual allegations that could give rise to a valid cause of action. It is virtually
impossible to ascertain whom he is seeking relief from or what relief he is seeking.
Consequently, because Plaintiff's action lacks an arguable basis in law, it is dismissed
as frivolous.

1“A

claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or in fact.” Bilal v.
Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001).
2

III.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

This case is DISMISSED.

2.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants

and to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 9th, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Unrepresented Party
OrlP-2 5/9

3