McKee v. Federal Bureau of Investigation Et Al - Document No. 4

McKee v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al Doc.
4
Case 3:06-cv-00746-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
GARY PATRICK MCKEE,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 3:06-cv-746-J-32MCR
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et.

al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint (Doc. 1) and
Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. 2), which the Court construes as a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1).
The Court may, upon a finding of indigency, authorize the commencement of an
action without requiring the prepayment of costs, fees, or security. 28 U.S.C.
§1915(a)(1). However, when an application to proceed in forma pauperis is filed, the
Court is obligated to review the case and to dismiss it if the Court determines the action
is frivolous or malicious; if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or if
the complaint seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2).
1
Any party may file and serve objections hereto within TEN (10) DAYS after service of this opinion.
Failure to do so shall bar the party from a de novo determination by a district judge of an issue covered herein
and from attacking factual findings on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, 6(a) and (e); Local
Rule 4.20, United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Dockets.Justia.com
An in forma pauperis complaint is considered frivolous if the Court determines
the factual allegations are “clearly baseless” or the legal theories are “indisputably
meritless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827 (1989); see also,
Perkins v. New Jersey Dept. of Labor, Div. of Workers Comp., 154 F.R.D. 132
(E.D.Pa. 1994) (if claim is fanciful or describes fantastic or delusional scenarios,
then it is factually baseless, for purposes of determining whether it is frivolous).
In reviewing the Complaint, the undersigned applied “the liberal construction to
which pro se pleadings are entitled.” Holsomback v. White, 133 F.3d 1382, 1386 (11th
Cir. 1998). However, liberal construction cannot serve as a substitute for establishing a
cause of action. See GJR Investments, Inc. v. County of Escambia Florida, 132 F.3d
1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998)
In this case, Plaintiff has filed what appears to be a complaint against the Federal
Bureau of Investigations ,Gilbert Southern Corporation, Quinn Construction, the Florida
Department of Transportation, Small Business Administration, Florida Small Business
Development Center Network, University of West Florida, and the States of Florida,
Minnesota, and Texas claiming that “the defendants sabotaged his family company,
himself and [his] girlfriend.” (Doc. 1). The Complaint then goes on to set forth rather
difficult to follow allegations regarding how the FBI and local law enforcement, along
with the other defendants, were involved in a corrupt plot to deprive Plaintiff of his civil
rights and cut off any possibility for Plaintiff’s livelihood and earnings capability.
Plaintiff’s Complaint sets forth no identifiable claim or ground for relief against
any defendant. Plaintiff does not set forth a factual basis for the suit, nor are any legal
-2-
grounds apparent. To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to sue these entities and states
for money damages, Plaintiff must set forth a legal basis for liability.2
Although the Court cannot discern any factual or legal basis for this suit, the
Complaint may be susceptible to amendment. It is therefore respectfully recommended
that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, and that this action
be dismissed, without prejudice to filing an amended complaint that properly invokes the
Court’s jurisdiction and sets forth a cause of action.
The amended complaint must include all of Plaintiff's claims in this action; it
should not refer back to the original filings. Plaintiff is reminded that federal courts are
courts of limited jurisdiction and his amended complaint must contain a "short and plain
statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends." Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(1). Plaintiff must specify in the caption of his amended complaint all of the
defendants he seeks to include in this action, and must properly and completely identify
each defendant. If any named defendant is a governmental agency, it must be properly
identified as such. Plaintiff must also set forth with specificity the nature of his causes of
action and how each named defendant is involved in the alleged wrongdoing. Plaintiff is
further advised that Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the
complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief" and Rule 10(b) states that “all averments of claim or defense shall be
2
Plaintiff should note that the law is well settled that a State and its agencies are immune
from suit, unless immunity is waived. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 276, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 2939
(1986); Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 908 (1984).
-3-
made in numbered paragraphs, the contents of each of which shall be limited as far as
practicable to a statement of a single set of circumstances....” Finally, Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(3) requires a complaint to include "a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader
seeks."
The Clerk is directed to furnish Plaintiff with a Step-By-Step Guide to Filing a Civil
Action in the United States District Court Jacksonville/Ocala Divisions. Plaintiff may wish
to obtain a copy of the Court's Local Rules which are available for review on the public
website for the Middle District Court of Florida at www.flmd.uscourts.gov or may be
obtained from the Clerk's Office. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available for
review in the law libraries of the state and federal courthouses.
Accordingly, after due consideration, it is
RECOMMENDED:
Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. 2), construed as a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), be DENIED without
prejudice and Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff
filing an amended complaint properly setting forth a cause of action. Should Plaintiff
decide he is able to file an amended complaint, he shall do so no later than close of
business, September 25, 2006. At this time, Plaintiff should also refile a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, along with a fully completed Affidavit of Indigency.
If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by this time, the undersigned will
recommend to the District Judge that this case be dismissed with prejudice.
-4-
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Jacksonville, Florida this 25th day of
August, 2006.
MONTE C. RICHARDSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies to:
Pro Se Plaintiff
Hon. Timothy J. Corrigan,
United States District Judge
-5-

McKee v. Federal Bureau of Investigation Et Al - Document No. 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

McKee v. Federal Bureau of Investigation Et Al - Document No. 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

McKee v. Federal Bureau of Investigation Et Al - Document No. 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

McKee v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al Doc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

GARY PATRICK MCKEE,

vs. Case No. 3:06-cv-746-J-32MCR

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1).

The Court may, upon a finding of indigency, authorize the commencement of an

action without requiring the prepayment of costs, fees, or security. 28 U.S.C.

§1915(a)(1). However, when an application to proceed in forma pauperis is filed, the

relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2).

An in forma pauperis complaint is considered frivolous if the Court determines

(E.D.Pa. 1994) (if claim is fanciful or describes fantastic or delusional scenarios,

then it is factually baseless, for purposes of determining whether it is frivolous).

In reviewing the Complaint, the undersigned applied “the liberal construction to

1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998)

Bureau of Investigations ,Gilbert Southern Corporation, Quinn Construction, the Florida

Department of Transportation, Small Business Administration, Florida Small Business

Complaint may be susceptible to amendment. It is therefore respectfully recommended

Court’s jurisdiction and sets forth a cause of action.

each defendant. If any named defendant is a governmental agency, it must be properly

practicable to a statement of a single set of circumstances....” Finally, Fed. R. Civ. P.

website for the Middle District Court of Florida at www.flmd.uscourts.gov or may be

review in the law libraries of the state and federal courthouses.

Accordingly, after due consideration, it is

Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. 2), construed as a motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), be DENIED without

prejudice and Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff

decide he is able to file an amended complaint, he shall do so no later than close of

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Jacksonville, Florida this 25th day of

You might also like