RICHARD PEREZ
v.
IRS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a complaint must be dismissed without prejudice if it is incomprehensible and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
[1] A court is not required to comb through an incomprehensible pleading to cobble together a claim on behalf of a plaintiff.
[2] Even pro se litigants are not afforded a license for the court to serve as de facto counsel or rewrite a deficient pleading to sustain an action.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When facing a situation like this, a court is not 'required to comb through an incomprehensible pleading in order to cobble together a claim on Plaintiff's behalf.'”
Explaining the standard for incomprehensible complaints
Plaintiff, a Florida prisoner, filed a pleading construed as a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court found the complaint incomprehe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Civil Rights Complaint (Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) cases and more on FLexlaw
Richard Perez, a Florida prisoner, filed a pleading (Doc. 1), which the Court construes as a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court has determined that it must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
The complaint is essentially incomprehensible. In short, the nature of Perez's claims and the defendants against whom he brings his claims are not readily determinable from a review of his complaint. When facing a situation like this, a court is not “required to comb through an incomprehensible pleading in order to cobble together a claim on Plaintiff's behalf." Gold v. Geo Gr., Inc., 2016 WL 7034404, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2016). Even in the case of pro se litigants, a court does not have a “license to
serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” GJR Invs. v. Cnty. Of Escambia, Fla., 132 F. 3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Randall v. Scott, 610 F. 3d 701, 709 (11th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Perez may pursue a new case by filing a proper complaint on the attached pre-printed complaint form—not using this case number— and including the filing fee or motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to (1) close this case and (2) send to Perez a civil rights complaint form and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis form with his copy of this Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on January 5, 2026.
JOHN L. BADALAMENTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. IRS, 2016 WL 7034404 (M.D. Fla. 2026)…re not readily determinable from a review of his complaint. When facing a situation like this, a court is not “required to comb through an incomprehensible pleading in order to cobble together a claim on Plaintiff’s behalf.” Gold v. Geo Gr., Inc., 2016 WL 7034404, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2016). Even in the case of pro se litigants, a court does not have a “license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” GJR Invs. v. Cnty. Of…
-
Burr v. GEO Grp. Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2024)…hat support or clarify their claims. When facing a situation like this, a court is not “required to comb through an incomprehensible pleading in order to cobble together a claim on Plaintiffs behalf." Gold v. Geo Gr., Inc., No. 2:16-cv-73-FTM-29MRM, 2016 WL 7034404, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2016). Even in the case of pro se litigants, the court does not have a "license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action." GJR Invs. v. Cnty. Of E…
-
Lorch v. Masters (M.D. Fla. 2024)…hat support or clarify their claims. When facing a situation like this, a court is not “required to comb through an incomprehensible pleading in order to cobble together a claim on Plaintiffs behalf." Gold v. Geo Gr., Inc., No. 2:16-cv-73-FTM-29MRM, 2016 WL 7034404, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2016). Even in the case of pro se litigants, the court does not have a "license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action." GJR Invs. v. Cnty. Of E…
Authorities Cited
- Randall v. Jewel Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir. 2010)
- Perez v. IRS, 2016 WL 7034404 (M.D. Fla. 2026)