Parker v. Bay Memorial Hospital, et al
ORDER DISMISSING CASE Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles (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
Case No. 17-cv-22130-GAYLES
J. ANTONIO PARKER,
BAY MEMORIAL HOPSITAL, et al.,
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on a sua sponte review of the record. On June
7, 2017, Plaintiff J. Antonio Parker, appearing pro se, filed a Complaint and a Motion for
Leave for Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 1, 4].
Because the Plaintiff has moved to
proceed in forma pauperis, the screening provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e), are applicable. Pursuant to that statute, the court is 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).
The standards governing dismissals for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
are the same as those governing dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Alba
v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). 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. To survive a motion to dismiss, a claim “must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)). “[T]he pleadings are construed broadly,” Levine v. World Fin. Network Nat’l Bank,
437 F.3d 1118, 1120 (11th Cir. 2006), and the allegations in the complaint are viewed in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, Hawthorne v. Mac Adjustment, Inc., 140 F.3d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir.
1998). In reviewing the Complaint, the Court must apply the “liberal construction to which pro se
pleadings are entitled.” Holsomback v. White, 133 F.3d 1382, 1386 (11th Cir. 1998). However,
liberal construction cannot serve as a substitute to establishing a valid cause of action. See GJR
Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998). At bottom, the question
is not whether the claimant “will ultimately prevail . . . but whether his complaint [is] sufficient
to cross the federal court’s threshold.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 530 (2011).
It is difficult to discern any rational claims from Plaintiff’s Complaint.
plaint is filled with random words and incoherent and incomplete sentences.
Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which any relief may be granted, and his Complaint shall be
dismissed pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Based thereon, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
[ECF No. 4] is DENIED, and the Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT
This action is CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 15th day of June, 2017.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?