Aristide v. US Department of Education et al
ORDER Dismissing Complaint re 1 Complaint, filed by Thales Antal Aristide, ( Amended Complaint due by 5/9/2017.) Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 4/25/2017. (ail)
United States District Court
Southern District of Florida
Thales Antal Aristide, Plaintiff,
U.S. Department of Education, and
Civil Action No. 17-60770-Civ-Scola
Order Dismissing Complaint
This matter is before the Court upon an independent review of the
record. A district court has the inherent power to dismiss, sua sponte, a
frivolous lawsuit. Davis v. Kvalheim, 261 F. App’x 231, 234 (11th Cir. 2008). A
lawsuit is frivolous if it lacks a legal basis or legal merit. See Black’s Law
Dictionary, 739 (9th ed. 2009). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a
pleading must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court’s jurisdiction; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a). The United States Supreme Court has held that this standard does
not require detailed factual allegations, but “demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544 (2007)). The factual allegations must be enough to raise the right to relief
above the speculative level. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Moreover, a complaint
will not suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s] devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.’” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
The Plaintiff is a pro se litigant. The Eleventh Circuit has held that “[p]ro
se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by
attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Shuler v. Ingram &
Assocs., No. 10-14509, 2011 WL 4495624, at *6 n.3 (11th Cir. Sep. 29, 2011)
(quoting Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107. 1110 (11th Cir 2006)). However, “the
leniency afforded pro se litigants does not give courts license to serve as de
facto counsel or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain
an action.” Shuler, 2011 WL 4495624, at *6 (citation omitted).
The Complaint does not include a statement of the claim showing that
Aristide is entitled to relief. Although Aristide states that the Florida
Department of Education “has already cleared me off and acknowledged the
loans were paid off,” and that the U.S. Department of Education has made a
“wrongful decision under the fair credit reporting act,” he does not identify
which loan(s) he is referencing or identify with any specificity the allegedly
wrongful actions of the U.S. Department of Education. Even accepting
Aristide’s statements at face value, the Complaint lacks sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to allow the Court to reasonably infer what Aristide’s
claim or claims for relief against the Defendants may be. Furthermore, Aristide
cites to 15 U.S.C. § 1692g and § 809. It is unclear what § 809 references.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Complaint (ECF No. 1) without
prejudice. The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that comports with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) on or before May 9, 2017.
Done and ordered in chambers, at Miami, Florida, on April 25, 2017.
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge
Thales Antal Aristide
3851 SW 52nd Ave., Apt. 202
Hollywood, FL 33023
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?