Rosenbloom v. Election Voting Board

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Dismissing Action without prejudice; Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 10/9/2019. See attached document for full details. (ls)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 19-cv-24096-GAYLES
Ned L. Rosenbloom,
Plaintiff,
v.
Board of Election Voting,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on a sua sponte review of the record. Plaintiff
Ned B. Rosenbloom, appearing pro se, filed this action on October 3, 2019. [ECF No. 1].
Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 3]. Because 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). The Court must also apply the “liberal construction to which pro se pleadings are entitled.”
Holsomback v. White, 133 F.3d 1382, 1386 (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).
Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Alban v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[A]lthough we are to give
liberal construction to the pleadings of pro se litigants, we nevertheless have required them to
conform to procedural rules.”) (internal citation and quotation omitted). Specifically, Plaintiff’s
Complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a), which requires “short and plain statement[s]” of the
grounds for jurisdiction, the facts showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief, and what relief is
sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s Complaint simply states that he is suing the Board of Election Voting—an entity that does not exist—because “prim[ar]y elections should be all states on
same date” and the “Electoral College should be eliminated.” This claim cannot proceed without
a viable defendant, a statement of jurisdiction, facts alleging a plausible injury, and a demand for
relief.

2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

This action is CLOSED for administrative

purposes and all pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 9th day of October, 2019.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3