Woods v. Northside Flea Market

Filing 6

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT re 1 Complaint filed by Timothy Woods, 4 MOTION for Referral to Volunteer Attorney Program filed by Timothy Woods, 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Timothy Woods, 5 MOTION to Talk to Federal U.S. Attorney and Federal Judge of Downtown Miami, Florida; Federal Courthouse filed by Timothy Woods Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 1/22/2018. (tm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 18-20147-Civ-COOKE
TIMOTHY WOODS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NORTHSIDE FLEA MARKET,
Defendant.
/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS and DISMISSING COMPLAINT
THIS MATTER is before me on pro se Plaintiff Timothy Woods’ Motion for Leave
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3). I have reviewed the Motion, Woods’ Complaint
(ECF No. 1), and the relevant legal authorities. For the reasons that follow, I deny the
motion.
BACKGROUND
Woods filed this action against the Northside Flea Market (“Market”) on January
12, 2018. (ECF No. 1). Woods performed work for a restaurant owner in the Market in
August 2017. (Id. at 1-2). He alleges that on at least one occasion, the Market’s security
guards discriminated against him by treating him rudely and calling him a racial slur. (Id.).
LEGAL STANDARD FOR IN FORMA PAUPERIS CASES
A court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis case “at any time if the court determines
that . . . the action . . . is frivolous or . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). A pleading that states a claim for relief must
contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,” as well as
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(2). The facts pleaded in a complaint must state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Further, the “short and plain
statement of the claim” in the complaint must be sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice
of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 555 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by
attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d
1262, 1263 (11th Cir.1998). However, the leniency shown to pro se litigants “does not give a
court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient
pleading in order to sustain an action.” GJR Invs. v. Cnty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369
(11th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds, as recognized by Randall v. Scott,
610 F.3d 701, 709 (11th Cir. 2010). “While the pleadings of pro se litigants are ‘liberally
construed,’ they must still comply with procedural rules governing the proper form of
pleadings.” Hopkins v. Saint Lucie County School Bd., 399 Fed. Appx. 563, 565 (11th Cir.
2010) (unpublished) (citations omitted).
DISCUSSION
Woods’ Complaint does not contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(2). As a threshold
matter, it appears from the Complaint that Woods worked for the owner of a restaurant in
the Market, not for the Market itself. Woods’ employment discrimination claim against the
Market is therefore implausible on its face. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The Complaint also
does not include a short and plain statement of the grounds for this Court’s jurisdiction. See
Fed. R. Civ. P 8(a)(1). Finally, Woods seeks $5,000,000.00 in damages, an amount that,
without further detail, strikes the Court as frivolous.
In short, the Complaint does not provide the Market fair notice of the claims against
it and the grounds upon which they rest. See, e.g., Brooks v. Jenne, 2005 WL 5488060, at *2
(S.D. Fla. 2005).
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED
without prejudice, meaning that Woods has leave to file an amended complaint if, and only if,
he is able to allege facts that cure the pleading deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of
Court shall CLOSE this matter. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED as moot.

2

DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 22nd day of January
2018.

Copies furnished to:
Timothy Woods, pro se
16202 N.W. 38th Place
Opa-Locka, FL 33054

3