Helgeson v. Stoner et al

Filing 4

ORDER - The Complaint, ECF No. #1 , is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Motion, ECF No. #3 , is DENIED AS MOOT. Any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT Closing Case. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 11/18/2020. See attached document for full details. (scn)

Case 0:20-cv-62346-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2020 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 20-cv-62346-BLOOM/Valle
DANIEL QUINN HELGESON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAYOR LYNN STONER, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District
Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs, ECF No. [3] (“Motion”), filed in conjunction with
Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. [1] (“Complaint”). The Court has carefully considered the Motion,
the Complaint, the record in this case, and is otherwise fully advised.
Plaintiff has not paid the required filing fee and, thus, the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e) are applicable. Fundamental to our system of justice is that the courthouse doors will
not be closed to persons based on their inability to pay a filing fee. Congress has provided that a
court “may authorize the commencement . . . or prosecution of any suit, action or proceeding . . . or
appeal therein, without the prepayment of fees . . . therefore, by a person who submits an affidavit
that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such
fees[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306 n.1
(11th Cir. 2004) (interpreting statute to apply to all persons seeking to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”)). Permission to proceed in forma pauperis is committed to the sound discretion of the
court. Camp v. Oliver, 798 F.2d 434, 437 (11th Cir. 1986); see also Thomas v. Chattahoochee

Case 0:20-cv-62346-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2020 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 20-cv-62346-BLOOM/Valle
Judicial Circuit, 574 F. App’x 916, 916 (11th Cir. 2014) (“A district court has wide discretion in
ruling on an application for leave to proceed IFP.”). However, “proceeding in forma pauperis is a
privilege, not a right.” Camp, 798 F.2d at 437.
In addition to the required showing that the litigant, because of poverty, is unable to pay
for the court fees and costs, Martinez, 364 F.3d at 1307, upon a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis the Court is required to examine whether “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
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court
determines that the complaint satisfies any of the three enumerated circumstances under Section
1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss the complaint.
To state a claim for relief, 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
complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “[T]o state a plausible claim for relief, the plaintiff[] must
plead ‘factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1268 (11th Cir.
2009) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949). Although a pro se litigant’s pleadings are construed
more liberally than pleadings drafted by attorneys, “this leniency does not give the court license
to serve as de facto counsel for a party . . . or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to
sustain the action.” GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir.
1998) (citations omitted).

2

Case 0:20-cv-62346-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2020 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 20-cv-62346-BLOOM/Valle
Even under the relaxed pleading standard afforded to pro se litigants, Plaintiff’s Complaint
does not set forth cognizable claims. The Complaint does not include sufficient factual matter that,
if accepted as true, allows the Court to reasonably infer that Defendants—an extensive list of public
officials including a mayor, police officers, crime scene technicians, paramedics, prosecutors,
public defenders, and state court judges—are liable for any misconduct or wrongdoing much less
for violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff is presently incarcerated in Broward County jail for
attempted murder in the first degree and was ordered to undergo psychological evaluations, ECF
No. [1-1] at 5. Plaintiff contends that his husband raped him and that he is a victim of spousal
abuse. Id. at 1. He maintains that he sent the “MY RAPES -PLEASE HELP ME!” letter, id. at 39, to various individuals, such as Mayor Lynn Stoner, who forwarded the letter to the police, who
then forwarded it to the State’s Attorney’s Office, who forwarded it to Plaintiff’s public defender,
and he also sent the letter to various judges. Id. at 1. He alleges that because he is a gay man, his
letter is ignored and, consequently, he is a victim of a hate crime “by everyone involved with my
alleged crime scene and this case from all interactions and interviews by any and all police officers,
detectives, paramedics, Broward Sheriff Gregory Tony, Plantation Mayor Lynn Stoner, and all
judges! All of the people listed as Defendants are GROSSLY NEGLIGENT!” Id. In particular, he
argues that the Defendants “took an oath to uphold the law” but they have ignored his “pleas for
help to report the crimes of rape and abuse,” and he has “clearly been denied [his] constitutional
rights to justice to report [his] assailant[.]” Id.
Even construing the Complaint broadly, Plaintiff fails to allege any violation of his civil
rights. Indeed, it is entirely unclear how any Defendant committed any wrongdoing much less a
violation of his “constitutional rights.” In this regard, while Plaintiff asserts that he is a victim of

3

Case 0:20-cv-62346-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2020 Page 4 of 4
Case No. 20-cv-62346-BLOOM/Valle
a hate crime (purportedly based on his sexual orientation and gender), his allegations are entirely
conclusory in nature, unadorned, and attenuated as to any Defendant’s involvement. Although the
Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff as his Complaint alleges he believes he has been “betray[ed]” by
the judicial system “at every turn,” id. at 2. However, as alleged, the receipt of his letter and the
lack of outcomes he seeks do not demonstrate a cognizable violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. The Motion, ECF No. [3], is DENIED AS MOOT. Any pending motions are
DENIED AS MOOT.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on November 18, 2020.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:

Daniel Quinn Helgeson
501903010
Broward County Main Jail
Inmate Mail/Parcels
Post Office Box 9356
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33310

4