Pullen v. Tucsan

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 4/22/2015. (anc)

Plaintiff’s IFP Applications and Plaintiff’s Complaints were submitted to the Court
to conduct the required frivolity review.
Plaintiff’s pro se Complaints are identical in each case and contain no
factual allegations. Plaintiff’s Complaints do not assert any specific claims, do not
specify against whom he seeks to assert any purported claims,3 and do not state the
basis for any claims he may wish to assert. Plaintiff’s Complaints merely list
cases, treatises, and other citations, without providing any factual basis to connect
these authorities to any claim for relief. Plaintiff’s Complaints do not contain a
demand for any equitable or monetary relief.
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review

A court must dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if at any time the
court determines the action is frivolous or malicious or that it fails to state a claim
on which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). “Failure to state
a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard as dismissal for
failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).” Wilkerson v. H&S, Inc.,
366 F. App’x 49, 51 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483,

3

The only reference to the captioned defendants appears in Plaintiff’s IFP
Applications. The Complaints do not contain captions, and the defendants are not
referenced in the Complaints.
4

1490 (11th Cir. 1997)). Under this standard, “a complaint 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)). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Review for frivolousness, on the other hand, “‘accords judges not only the
authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but
also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and
dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” See
Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Neitzke
v.Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). A claim is frivolous when it “has little or
no chance of success,” that is, when it appears “from the face of the complaint that
the factual allegations are ‘clearly baseless’ or that the legal theories are
‘indisputably meritless.’” Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993)
(quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327).
Plaintiff filed his Complaint pro se. “A document filed pro se is to be
liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be

5

held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted). Nevertheless, a pro se plaintiff must comply with the threshold
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Beckwith v. Bellsouth
Telecomms. Inc., 146 F. App’x 368, 371 (11th Cir. 2005). “Even though a pro se
complaint should be construed liberally, a pro se complaint still must state a claim
upon which the Court can grant relief.” Grigsby v. Thomas, 506 F. Supp. 2d 26,
28 (D.D.C. 2007). “[A] district court does not have license to rewrite a deficient
pleading.” Osahar v. U.S. Postal Serv., 297 F. App’x 863, 864 (11th Cir. 2008)
B.

Analysis

Plaintiff’s Complaints do not contain any specific factual assertions or legal
claims against any person or entity or the captioned defendants. Instead, Plaintiff’s
Complaints contain only the same list of seemingly unrelated cases, treatises, and
laws, and fail to demand any specific equitable or monetary relief. Plaintiff’s
Complaints fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and these actions
are required to be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

6

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that these actions are DISMISSED pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

SO ORDERED this 22nd day of April, 2015.

_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7