Banks v. Limardi et al

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 6/4/2012. (rss)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 12-61001-Civ-SCOLA
EDDIE ALEXANDER BANKS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AL LIMBARDI, et. al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon an independent review of the record. The
Court has considered the Complaint (ECF No. 1), as well as the several other notices (ECF Nos.
5-12), filed by the Plaintiff, Eddie A. Banks. Also pending before the Court is Banks’s Motion
for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3). As explained in this Order, the Complaint
is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
A complaint “must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A plaintiff must articulate “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007) (abrogating Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Detailed factual allegations are not required, but a pleading “that offers ‘labels and conclusions’
or a ‘formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
The Court has the inherent power to dismiss, sua sponte, a frivolous lawsuit. Davis v.
Kvalheim, 261 F. App’x 231, 234 (11th Cir. 2008). In this context, a lawsuit is frivolous if it
lacks a legal basis or legal merit. See Black’s Law Dictionary, 739 (9th ed. 2009). A complaint
may be dismissed even before service of process, if the Court determines “from the face of the
complaint that the factual allegations are clearly baseless or that the legal theories are
indisputably meritless.” Davis, 261 F. App’x at 234 (quoting Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392,

393 (11th Cir. 1993)). “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings
drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Asad v. Bush, 170 F. App’x 668,
671 (11th Cir. 2006). However, Pro se litigants must still follow the court’s procedural rules.
See Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002). In assessing whether a plaintiff may
proceed in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2006) requires a court to dismiss a case at
any time if the court determines that the case is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted. The same standard as a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) governs a dismissal under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d
1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997).
Even liberally construed, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted and is, in fact, frivolous because it lacks a legal basis or legal merit. The Complaint is
difficult to comprehend, but seems to allege that the various Defendants, including Broward
County Sherriff’s deputies, as well as several judges, did not have the authority to take certain
actions against the Plaintiff. The numerous allegations include theft, kidnapping, torture, and
unlawful seizure of property. While the Court recognizes these are serious allegations, Plaintiff
has failed to articulate any factual or legal allegations in a manner that successfully state a cause
of action.
Accordingly, the Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

The

Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida, on June 4, 2012.

________________________________
ROBERT N. SCOLA, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Designated U.S. Magistrate Judge
Eddie Alexander Banks
c/o General Delivery
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33310