ZAPATA
v.
BANK OF AMERICA
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 the pro se plaintiff's complaint was insufficient because it failed to state a plausible claim for relief and was based on a criminal statute with no private right of action.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint that consisted only of the text of a criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1344, without alleging any specific…
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 Criminal Statute Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff Randy Zapata's Complaint. (Doc. 1). Because his Complaint is insufficient, the Court dismisses it with leave to amend.
Plaintiff brings this action pro se. Pro se complaints are construed liberally and held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings that lawyers draft. See Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F. 3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). But this leniency has its limits. Courts neither “serve as de facto counsel for a [pro se] party,” nor “rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Id. at 1168-69 (citation omitted); see also Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (pro se litigants are “subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure").
There is no point in beating around the bush, the Court has no clue what this case is about. There is not a single fact alleged in the Complaint. In fact, the Complaint consists only of the text of a statute—18 U.S.C. § 1344. Based on this, the Court can surmise this case has something to do with bank fraud. But even so, this is a criminal statute with no private right of action. See Thomson v. Virgo, No. 8:21-CV-478-MSS-JSS, 2021 WL 10410919, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 3, 2021). So the one claim Plaintiff seems to assert fails.
At the most basic level, the Complaint must include a short and plain statement of the claim showing Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This entails pleading enough facts to state a claim that is “plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). A claim is plausible when a plaintiff “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. Bare labels and conclusions are insufficient. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007). Because Plaintiffs Complaint falls well short of this pleading standard, it must be dismissed.
One more point. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or moved to proceed in forma pauperis. To the extent he files an amended complaint, he must do
SO.
2
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. On or before January 3, 2025, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint that satisfies the pleading requirements. By this same date, Plaintiff must pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis. Failure to do so will cause the Court to close this case without further notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on December 18, 2024.
SherPoster Rappell
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009)
- Moon v. Lanson Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Campbell v. AIR Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 2014)