Townsend et al v. Grant

Middle District of Florida, flmd-8:2016-cv-03299

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re {{5}} MOTION for leave to proceed in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency filed by Randall C. Townsend. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 12/16/2016. (CJF)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

PageID 150 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION RANDALL C. TOWNSEND, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:16-cv-3299-T-17MAP JOHN GRANT, et al, Defendant. _____________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, recently removed this action to this Court (docs. 1, 4). The eighty-one page Complaint, which is incomprehensible, contains a myriad of claims, including human trafficking and conspiracy, against dozens of attorneys, judges, former and present public officials, and private corporations and citizens (doc. 6). Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee and instead seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 5). At issue now is whether Plaintiff's Complaint (doc. 6), as well as his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 5), satisfy the threshold demands of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 After reviewing Plaintiff's notice of removal (docs. 1, 4), I find the case is improperly in this Court. The right to remove is limited to "true" defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (providing that a defendant may remove a civil action to federal court); Rigaud v. Broward Gen. Med. Ctr., 346 F. App'x 453, 454 (11th Cir. 2009) (per 1 Section 1915 represents a balance between facilitating an indigent person's access to the courts and curbing the potentially vast number of suits by such persons, who, unlike those who must pay in order to litigate their claims, have no economic disincentives to filing frivolous or malicious suits once in forma pauperis status is granted. A district court may conclude a case has little or no chance of success and dismiss the complaint when it determines from the face of the complaint that the factual allegations are "clearly baseless" or that the legal theories are "indisputably meritless." Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). PageID 151 curiam). In other words, plaintiffs – even those named as counter defendants – may not remove cases to federal court. Eldred v. Seafarer Expl. Corp., No. 8:13-CV-2696-T-30, 2013 WL 5954788, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2013). Thus, Plaintiff had no right to remove this case.2 Because the case is improperly before this Court, I RECOMMEND 1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 5) be denied; 2. This case be remanded to state court and closed. IT IS SO REPORTED in Tampa, Florida on December 16, 2016. NOTICE TO PARTIES A party has fourteen days from this date to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation's factual findings and legal conclusions. A party's failure to file written objections waives that party's right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual finding or legal conclusion the district judge adopts from the Report and Recommendation. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1. 2 Even if the Complaint were originally filed in this Court, Plaintiff could not proceed in forma pauperis because his allegations are "fanciful," "fantastic," and "delusional". See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). 2