Perry v. State of Florida et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 9/10/2020. See attached document for full details. (jas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 20-cv-23760-BLOOM/Louis

ALONSO HUMBERTO PERRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the
reasons set forth below, the Complaint is dismissed, and the Motion is denied as moot.
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

Case No. 20-23760-BLOOM/Louis
court. Camp v. Oliver, 798 F.2d 434, 437 (11th Cir. 1986); see also Thomas v. Chattahoochee
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.
A pleading in a civil action must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although a complaint “does not need
detailed factual allegations,” it must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that Rule 8(a)(2)’s
pleading standard “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation”). Nor can a complaint rest on “‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (alteration in original)).
“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Importantly, “[p]ro se
pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and [are] liberally
construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). “But the leniency

2

Case No. 20-23760-BLOOM/Louis
accorded 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 to sustain an action.” Matthews, Wilson & Matthews, Inc.
v. Capital City Bank, 614 F. App’x 969, 969 n.1 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cty. of
Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled in part on other grounds by
Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 709 (11th Cir. 2010)).
The Complaint fails to state an actionable claim and, therefore, dismissal is appropriate.
The Complaint is comprised of three pages of text in which Plaintiff asserts that he seeks $162.5
billion and a “total of” $567.7 billion for “federal law of beatings and abuses of Florida residents
against law enforcement” with a purported time period listed as August 20, 2020 to July 29, 2038.
ECF No. [1] at 6. No actual details or facts of any kind are set forth to describe the underlying
matter for which Plaintiff seeks redress. As best can be construed from the Complaint, Plaintiff
“sue[s] for another release from obligation to Satan” and he “command[s] [himself] to receive all
known cereals to govern [his] healing[.]” Id. at 2. The Court is unclear how the matters discussed
in pages one and two of the Complaint relate to “beatings and abuses.” Simply put, the Complaint
fails to allege any facts setting out a discernable cause of action1 other than perhaps vague
references to Plaintiff’s desire to “resolve” his prison term and “be free[.]” Id. at 1-2. Although the
Court construes pro se pleadings under a more relaxed pleading standard, the Complaint fails to
pass muster under its present form. Because the Court cannot ascertain any meritorious or plausible
claim for relief from Plaintiff’s allegations, the instant action must be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

1

The civil cover sheet, ECF No. [1] at 9, checks off a box for motions to vacate sentence, but the
document also says “NA ALL” written across the top.
3

Case No. 20-23760-BLOOM/Louis
2. The Motion, ECF No. [3], is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 10th day of September,
2020.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Alberto Humberto Perry
T04419
Dade Correctional Institution
Inmate Mail/Parcels
19000 SW 377th Street
Florida City, FL 33034

4