Pierre v. City of Fort Lauderdale

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Case is CLOSED. Signed by Judge James I. Cohn on 1/25/2013. (ams)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 13-60164-CIV-COHN
ALPHONSE PIERRE,
Plaintiff,
v.
FORT LAUDERDALE POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.
_________________________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Alphonse Pierre’s Complaint
[DE 1]. The Court has considered the Complaint and is otherwise advised in the
premises. Because Plaintiff has not paid a filing fee, the Court conducts a screening
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
I. BACKGROUND
On January 24, 2013, Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against Defendant Fort Lauderdale Police Department (“FLPD”). The suit arises
from an alleged altercation between Plaintiff and FLPD’s police officers that took place
at Plaintiff’s apartment on June 17, 2007. Plaintiff claims that his neighbor, “Mr. Max,”
called the police to complain that Plaintiff’s music was too loud. See Compl. at 1.
When the police arrived at Plaintiff’s apartment, they allegedly tased Plaintiff, arrested
him, and took him to the Broward County Main Jail. See id. at 2. Plaintiff further claims
that the entire incident was coordinated ahead of time by the neighbors and the police
officers. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he brought a complaint to the Florida Department of

Law Enforcement, but that they ignored him in order to cover up the conduct of certain
disbarred attorneys and former judges. Id. Plaintiff requests that the “United States
District Court, Southern District of Florida Civil Rights Division investigates this matter
and prosecutes pirate lawyers and police officers involved with this violation.” Id. at 3.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Because Plaintiff has not paid a filing fee, the Court conducts a screening
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Section 1915 reads in pertinent part:
Notwithstanding 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– . . .
(B) the action or appeal-(i)
is frivolous or malicious;
(ii)
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii)
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).1 Dismissals for failure to state a claim are governed by the
same standard as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mitchell v. Farcass, 112
F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997) (“The language of section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks the
language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”). However, even if a complaint
properly states a claim, it may still be dismissed as frivolous if it is clear that an
affirmative defense would bar the suit. See Clark v. Ga. Pardons & Paroles Bd., 915
F.2d 636, 640-41 (11th Cir. 1990).
At this stage of litigation, the allegations of a complaint are taken as true and are

1

“Section 1915(e) applies to all [in forma pauperis] litigants [including] prisoners
who pay fees on an installment basis, prisoners who pay nothing, and nonprisoners in
both categories.” Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1491 n.1 (11th Cir. 1997).
2

construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of
Educ., 120 F.3d 1390, 1393 (11th Cir. 1997). Pro se complaints are held to “less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers and can only be dismissed
for failure to state a claim if it appears ‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set
of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’” Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1979) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)).
III. ANALYSIS
Upon review of the Complaint, the Court finds that dismissal is warranted
because Plaintiff’s claim is frivolous. The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed nearlyidentical complaints in two previous cases based on the same incident underlying the
present case. See Pierre v. Fort Lauderdale Police Dep’t, Case No. 11-62239-CIVDIMITROULEAS/SNOW (S.D. Fla. filed Oct. 17, 2011) (“the first case”); Pierre v. Fort
Lauderdale Police Dep’t, Case No. 12-62456-CIV-COHN/SELTZER (S.D. Fla. filed
Dec. 11, 2012) (“the second case”). In the first case, after reviewing the Complaint, the
Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why This Cause Should Not Be Dismissed as
Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations [First Case, DE 6] (“Order to Show Cause”),
in which it pointed out that the statute of limitations for § 1983 actions brought in Florida
is four years. See Order to Show Cause at 2 (citing McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168,
1173 (11th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 2914 (2008)). Plaintiff failed to timely
respond to the Order to Show Cause, and the Court dismissed the action. See Order
Dismissing Case [First Case, DE 9]. Two months later, Plaintiff filed a Motion to
Reopen the Case [First Case, DE 10], in which Plaintiff failed to respond to the statute
of limitations issue, and instead reasserted all of the allegations in his Complaint with
3

greater detail. The Court denied that motion, and the first case remains closed.
See Order Denying Mot. to Reopen Case [First Case, DE 11].
In the second case, the Court once again found that Plaintiff’s suit would be
time-barred, explaining that
The four-year statute of limitations on § 1983 actions runs from the date
the plaintiff knew that he was injured, and knew who caused the injury.
See Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279, 1283 (11th Cir. 2003). Here,
Plaintiff claims that he was injured on June 17, 2007. He was plainly
aware of his alleged injury on the day it occurred, and knew that members
of FLPD had caused it. Therefore, the last day on which Plaintiff could
have timely brought this claim was June 17, 2011. It was filed on
December 11, 2012, and is thus barred by the statute of limitations.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Complaint. In the present case, Plaintiff filed suit
on January 24, 2013, bringing a claim under § 1983 for injuries that occurred on June
17, 2007.2 Once again, because of the four-year statute of limitations on § 1983
actions, this action would be time-barred. Accordingly, the Complaint must be
dismissed.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Complaint [DE 1] is DISMISSED with
prejudice. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot, and the Clerk of Court is
directed to CLOSE this case.

2

Plaintiff represents that he is “experiencing retaliation from the authorities.”
See Compl. at 2. But in describing the alleged retaliation, he only refers to the injuries
he suffered on June 17, 2007. See id. Accordingly, the Court construes this claim as
referring to the injuries he suffered on June 17, 2007, and not any subsequent harms.
4

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
Florida, on this 25th day of January, 2013.

Copies provided to:
Alphonse Pierre, pro se
4290 NW 19th Street
Apartment #H202
Lauderhill, FL 33313

5