Dawkins v. Yahoo et al

Filing 4

ORDER Dismissing Complaint Without Prejudice. Amended Complaint may be filed by 1/14/2012. Signed by Judge William P. Dimitrouleas on 12/15/11. (tp)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 11-62647-CIV-DIMITROULEAS/SNOW ELKINO DENARDO DAWKINS, SR., Plaintiff, vs. YAHOO, FACEBOOK, AND GOOGLE, INC., Defendants. ________________________________________/ ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff filed a Complaint and Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on December 14, 2011. [DE 1, 3]. Because Plaintiff is requesting to proceed in forma pauperis, the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) are applicable. That section requires the Court to dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the action is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). “Pro 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). This leniency, however, 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 Investments, Inc. v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998); Pontier v. City of Clearwater, 881 F. Supp. 1565, 1568 (M.D. Fla. 1995). Furthermore, Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a pleading shall contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Allegations that consist of nothing more than legal conclusions are insufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009). The material portion of Plaintiff’s Complaint reads “I ... sue [Defendants] for the sum of two million dollars [for] violation of the Privacy Act as well as a breached privacy policy.” The Complaint is devoid of factual allegations and is simply a legal conclusion. Therefore, it must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Plaintiff Elkino Denardo Dawkins, Sr.’s Complaint [DE 1] is hereby DISMISSED with leave to refile an Amended Complaint by January 14, 2012, that comports with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Southern District of Florida Local Rules, and this Order. 2. In redrafting an amended complaint, the Plaintiff shall set forth each legal claim in a separate count. Further, each count shall state with specificity both the factual and legal basis for each claim it sets forth. Other numbered paragraphs may be incorporated by reference but this must be done with particular care so that only relevant paragraphs are referenced. It is impermissible to attempt a wholesale incorporation by reference of all preceding paragraphs. A failure to comply with this order may result in a dismissal with prejudice of this action. 3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [DE 3] is hereby DENIED without prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 15th day of December, 2011. Copies furnished to: Elkino Dawkins 1300 Washington Ave. Miami Beach, FL 33139

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?