Carreras et al v. United States Probation

Filing 4

Final Order of Dismissal. Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 4/27/2009. (bc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 09-80603-CIV-ZLOCH ANTHONY W. CARRERAS, and ROBIN EDMONDS, Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES PROBATION, Defendant. / THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Complaint (DE 1) and Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (DE 3). The Court has FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

carefully reviewed said Complaint and Motion and the entire court file and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Plaintiffs Anthony W. Carreras and Robin Edmonds commenced the above-styled cause with the filing of their Complaint (DE 1) alleging that Defendant United States Probation have prevented them from pursuing a romantic relationship with each other. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a court may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if the action is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief This can is be so granted. because 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).

"[s]ection

1915

represents a balance between facilitating an indigent person's access to the courts and curbing the potentially vast number of suits by such persons, who, unlike those who must pay in order to litigate their claims, have no economic disincentives to filing frivolous or malicious suits once in forma pauperis status is

granted."

Herrick v. Collins, 914 F.2d 228, 229 (11th Cir. 1990).

The United States Supreme Court has held that a complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis in law or if fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Factual frivolity

means "clearly baseless" on the facts, and legal frivolity means an "indisputably meritless" legal theory. Id. at 327. A complaint

fails to state a claim where the claims asserted are implausible as pled. Cf. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 556-57

(2007) (construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)). That is, a claim must plead "enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest" that recovery will be warranted. Id. at 556.

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' Complaint (DE 1) is both frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. First, there is no private right secured by the

Constitution and made actionable through § 1983 for one convicted felon to pursue a romantic relationship with another. Second, the

Court has no jurisdiction over the terms of Plaintiffs' supervised release. These claims should be brought to the attention of

Plaintiffs' probation officers directly and the district judge presiding over Plaintiffs' criminal cases. Therefore, the Court

finds that there is no arguable basis in law or in fact for Plaintiffs' (DE 1) Complaint to proceed and the claims are

implausible as pled.

The Complaint is both frivolous and fails to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted; it shall therefore

2

be dismissed.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).

Accordingly, after due consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The above-styled cause be and the same is hereby DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) because it is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and 2. To the extent not otherwise disposed of herein, all pending motions are hereby DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 27th day of April 2009.

WILLIAM J. ZLOCH United States District Judge Copies furnished: All Counsel and Parties of Record

3