Wade v. Sullivan et al

Filing 6

ORDER Dismissing Case without prejudice. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles See attached document for full details. (hs01)

Case 1:23-cv-20183-DPG Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2023 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 23-cv-20183-GAYLES
JOSEPH E. WADE,
v.

Plaintiff,

PASSION L. SULLIVAN, et al.,
Defendants,
______________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on a sua sponte review of the record. Plaintiff,
appearing pro se, filed this action on January 13, 2023. [ECF No. 1].1 Plaintiff also filed a
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis the same day. [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

1 The same day, Plaintiff filed several other actions against some of the same defendants. See e.g. Wade v. Department
of Veteran Affairs, et. al., 23-cv-20191-KMW, Wade v. Department of Veteran Affairs, et al., 23-cv-20185-CMA, and
Wade v. Sullivan et al.,, 23-cv-20180-BB.

Case 1:23-cv-20183-DPG Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2023 Page 2 of 2

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). 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).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he had some type of employment arrangement
with the Defendants and that he was subjected to unfair treatment at work. [ECF No. 1].
Plaintiff fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff names fourteen Defendants in this action but fails to allege how those Defendants are
responsible for any wrongdoing. Indeed, the Court is unable to discern what claims Plaintiff is
attempting to bring in this action and what factual allegations are intended to support each claim
against each specific defendant. As a result, this action must be dismissed without prejudice for
failure to state a claim. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and
CLOSED for administrative purposes. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 19th day of January, 2023.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2