ANDERSON

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid’s Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 8], entered on October 13, 2020.

On February 27, 2020, Plaintiff, Travis Ortez Anderson, filed a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights [ECF No. 1] and a pleading the Court construed as a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 3]. That same day, the Court entered two separate Order[s] requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and a new motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis by March 27, 2020, cautioning the failure to do so would result in a report recommending the case be dismissed. (See Feb. 27, 2020 Order [ECF No. 5] 3; Feb. 27, 2020 Order [ECF No. 6] 9).

Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Order requiring him to file a new motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. (See Report¹–2).

In her Report, Judge Reid¹ recommends Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF No. 7] be dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or request leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (See id. 2).

The Court agrees. Pro se plaintiffs must either pay a filing fee or submit a

Even if Plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Amended Complaint does not survive 28 U.S.C section 1915(e) screening. According to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e), courts are permitted to dismiss a suit filed in forma pauperis “at any time if 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.” Id. § 1915(e)(2) (alteration added).

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has filed a barebones Amended Complaint against Defendants, the State Attorney Office, Florida’s Department of Corrections, and Elidreanna Williams, a private citizen and employee of Miami-Dade County School Board. (See Am. Compl. 2–3). Plaintiff alleges Williams “falsely accused” him of “aggravated stalking” resulting in his illegal detention in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Aff. [ECF No. 7-1] 1; see also Am. Compl. 4). Plaintiff seeks $60,000.00 in damages for lost wages, emotional distress, loss of his apartment, and Williams’s alleged slander of his name. (See Am. Compl. 6).

Nor does Plaintiff allege any facts that suggest Williams may be considered a state actor. See Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F. 3d 1256, 1258 (11th Cir. 2005) (“To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. [section] 1983, a plaintiff must prove (1) a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” (alteration added; citation omitted)).

In addition to failing to articulate a plausible claim for relief, the Amended Complaint is a quintessential shotgun pleading. A shotgun pleading makes it “virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief.” Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll., 77 F. 3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996).

Shotgun pleadings “fail . . . to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F. 3d 1313, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015) (alteration added; footnote call number omitted).

From the information in the Amended Complaint, the Court is unable to distill what the nature of Plaintiff’s claim or claims for relief might be. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations that Williams falsely accused him and that he was CASE NO. 20-20861-CIV-ALTONAGA/Reid unlawfully detained are insufficient. Nor will the Court do Plaintiffs job for him. See Williams v. Donald, No. 1:08-cv-57, 2009 WL 2589595, at *4 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 19, 2009) (alteration added) (“[C]ourts are not required to aid [pro se] litigants in setting forth legally cognizable claims.” (alterations added)); see also Jones v. N.L.R.B., 675 F. App’x 923, 925 (11th Cir. 2017) (“While pro se briefs are generally held to a less stringent standard than those submitted by counsel, courts are not required to step into the role of de facto counsel.” (citation omitted)).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 8] is ADOPTED as to the recommendation that the instant action be DISMISSED due to Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee or request leave to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as his failure to comply with the Court’s Order [ECF No. 5]. After independent review of the record, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [ECF No. 7] is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case, and any pending motions are DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 14th day of October, 2020. lou dx. Vl (Aira

CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid Plaintiff, Travis Ortez Anderson, pro se