COLE

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a review of pro se Plaintiff Donald Merton Cole’s Complaint, ECF No. , docketed on April 7, 2023. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee but has moved to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. . Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who has not paid the required filing fee, the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e) apply. Under the statute, courts are 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Having screened Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court concludes it is subject to dismissal. 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(a). “A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Id. 10(b). More importantly, “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)). The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests[.]” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up). Courts must “construe pro se pleadings liberally, holding them to a less stringent standard

than those drafted by attorneys.” Arrington v. Green, 757 F. App’x 796, 797 (11th Cir. 2018).

Still, a pro se party must abide by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires that a pleading contain a “short and plain statement of the claim” showing the pleader is entitled to relief. See Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F. 3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021).

Plaintiff’s handwritten Statement of Claim reads, in totality: “Terrorized in France many times in many ways officials here responsible concern of money laundering through fraud, court suppression, when attack source is here [illegible] to Biden w/ knowledge for cover up another fraud.” ECF No. at 4. For relief, plaintiff seeks $25,000 as “expenses of trip” and $25,000,000,000 in punitive damages for “Terrorism on Europe[.]” Id. As the basis for federal jurisdiction, the Complaint cites “18 U.S.C. [§] 510(c),” “Life, Liberty & Pursuit of Happiness,”

and “International Terrorism by collusion of officials here making me pay when they are responsible.” ECF No. at 3. Plaintiff’s Complaint is unintelligible. It consists entirely of “conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F. 3d 1313, 1321–22 (11th Cir. 2015).

The Court concludes that the Complaint is frivolous and has “no chance of success.” Carroll v. Gross, 984 F. 2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993).

As such, sua sponte dismissal is appropriate. See, e.g., Cole v. Dep’t of Justice, No. 23- cv-60604-RAR, Order Dismissing Case (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2023) (dismissing as frivolous Plaintiff’s similar Complaint against the Department of Justice).

Case No. 23-cv-60666-BLOOM

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case and all pending motions are DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on April 7, 2023.

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Donald Merton Cole 3740 NE 6th Avenue Oakland Park, FL 33334