Kabbaj v. Albro et al
ORDER DISMISSING CASE Closing Case. Motions terminated: 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Younes Kabbaj. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 1/30/2015. (hs01) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
BRIAN ALBRO, MARK SIMPSON, JOHN
THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte.
Plaintiff, Younes Kabbaj, appearing
pro se, has filed a Complaint against Brian Albro, Mark Simpson and John Does 1-9 (collectively
“Defendants”) [ECF No. 1].
Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and the
screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e) are applicable.
Pursuant to that statute, courts
are permitted to dismiss a suit “any time  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 against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915(e)(2).
initial screening, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted against the Defendants.
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.
Thereunder, “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).
Plaintiff’s complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the Defendants for
defamation, tortious interference with contract, and negligent and intentional infliction of
Plaintiff references seven cases from the District of Delaware to set forth
alleged instances of defamation.
However, Plaintiff fails to identify with particularity the
“thousands” of defamatory internet articles Defendants allegedly published.
Plaintiff fails to sufficiently identify how the Defendants conspired to pursue malicious
prosecutions against him.
Finally, Plaintiff fails to adequately allege whether this Court has
personal jurisdiction over the Defendants or how venue is proper in this district. Indeed, the
Defendants are all citizens of New York and the limited allegations all relate to either litigation in
Delaware and/or arrests and prosecutions in New York. 1
Accordingly, it is
1 The Court also notes that this case appears to restate the allegations against the same defendants in case number
14-cv-60889-JAL, a case on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit from this district.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis is
DENIED and the Clerk is instructed to mark the case as CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 30th day of January, 2015.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Magistrate Judge Turnoff
All Counsel of Record
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?