U
NITED
S
TATES
D
ISTRICT
C
OURT
M
IDDLE
D
ISTRICT OF
F
LORIDA
O
RLANDO
D
IVISION
CHARLIE TAYLOR, JR.,Plaintiff,-vs-Case No. 6:05-cv-1524-Orl-19KRS WILLIAM McLEOD, et al.,Defendants. ______________________________________
R
EPORT
A
ND
R
ECOMMENDATIONTO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
On October 12, 2005, Charlie Taylor, Jr., appearing
pro se
, filed a complaint againstWilliam McLeod, Raymond McLeod, Charlie Martin, Margaret Quarantello, the McLeod LawFirm, P.A., and the Estate of Johnie McLeod (collectively “the defendants”), doc. no. 1, along witha motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis
, doc. no. 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to consider whether Taylor’s complaint is frivolous,malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief against adefendant who is immune from such relief.
See, e.g., Hamaas v. Florida
, No. 305CV771J99HTS,2005 WL 2063787, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2005) (noting that “28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is notlimited to prisoners, but applies to all persons proceeding
in forma pauperis
.”).
I.STANDARD OF REVIEW.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit applies the same standardapplicable to motions to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismissals for failure to state a
Case 6:05-cv-01524-PCF-KRS Document 5 Filed 10/21/2005 Page 1 of 6
-2-
claim on which relief may be granted under section 1915(e)(2)(B). Under this standard, acomplaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt thatthe plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief.
Conley v. Gibson
, 355 U.S.41, 45-46 (1957). “In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), courts must be mindful that the Federal Rules require only that the complaint contain ‘a short and plainstatement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]’”
United States v. Baxter Intern., Inc.
, 345 F.3d 866, 880 (11 Cir. 2003) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. (8)(a)).
th
In addition, it is well established that “[
p
]
ro se
pleadings are held to a less stringentstandard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.”
Tannenbaum v. United States
, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11 Cir. 1998). Nevertheless, it is not the
th
Court’s duty to re-write a plaintiff’s complaint so as to bring it into compliance with the FederalRules of Civil Procedure.
See Peterson v. Atlanta Hous. Auth.
, 998 F.2d 904, 912 (11 Cir. 1993);
th
see also Olsen v. Lane
, 832 F. Supp. 1525, 1527 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (“[
P
]
ro se
litigant[s] must stillmeet minimal pleading standards.”).
II.ANALYSIS.
In his complaint, Taylor asserts claims for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty (Count I); (2) civilrights violations (Count II); (3) conspiracy to commit civil rights violations (Count III); and (4)“vicarious liability” (Count IV). Doc. No. 1. The allegations in the complaint appear to center around probate proceedings and related disputes concerning the estate of Charlie Taylor, Sr. It isunclear
precisely which claim or claims apply to each defendant. Thus, for purposes of the present
Case 6:05-cv-01524-PCF-KRS Document 5 Filed 10/21/2005 Page 2 of 6
The statute provides, in relevant part, as follows:
1
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of anyrights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “In cases [arising] under § 1983, ‘under color’ of law has consistently been treated as the
2
same thing as the ‘state action’ required under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Rendell-Baker v. Kohn
, 457 U.S. 830, 838 (1982) (quoting
United States v. Price
, 383 U.S. 787, 794 n.7 (1966)).
-3-
analysis, I will assume that Taylor intended to assert each cause of action set forth in the complaintagainst each defendant.
Taylor’s civil rights claims are predicated upon the Civil Rights Act of 1861, 42 U.S.C. §1983. Compl. at ¶ 2. In sum, Taylor alleges that the McLeod Law Firm engaged in “numerous
1
instances of disparate (and vastly inferior) treatment of and provision of services by . . . its lawyersto African Americans, despite the fact that they are similarly situated to White Americans for allintents and purposes.” Compl. at ¶ 27. Taylor further alleges that Quarantello conspired withWilliam McLeod “to violate [his] . . . civil rights . . . by treating him in ways, based on her belief that she can get away with such discrimination against a Black in this time and place especially inthe joint pursuit of such Black man’s money by a prominent White attorney . . . . Compl. at ¶ 30.To establish liability against a private party in a personal or individual capacity under §1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendant deprived him of a federal right, while acting “under color of state law.”
Focus on the Family v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Auth.
, 344 F.3d 1263,
2
Case 6:05-cv-01524-PCF-KRS Document 5 Filed 10/21/2005 Page 3 of 6
Ihre Neugier belohnen
Alles, was Sie lesen wollen.
Jederzeit. Überall. Auf jedem Gerät.
Keine Verpflichtung. Jederzeit kündbar.