Hunafa v. Schaeffer
8:11-cv-01419
M.D. Fla.Jun 29, 2011Background
- Plaintiff Mohammed M. Hunafa, proceeding pro se, sued Lieutenant Stanley Schaeffer and the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office in the Middle District of Florida.
- Plaintiff filed a Complaint and an Affidavit of Indigency, which the court construed as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- Plaintiff alleges removal of a personal protection item and failure to return property, asserting violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2265 and Florida Statute § 790.
- Plaintiff seeks $1,000,000 in punitive damages for these alleged violations.
- The court questions whether any federal claim exists and whether the complaint meets Rule 8/Rule 10 pleading standards.
- The court recommends denying IFP and dismissing the complaint for failure to state a plausible claim and lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states a federal claim | Hunafa asserts federal statutory violations by the defendant. | Defendant argues no federal claim is pled and no basis for federal jurisdiction is shown. | No federal claim or jurisdiction found; dismissal recommended. |
| Whether 18 U.S.C. § 2265 provides a viable basis for relief | Statutory violations entitle relief and damages. | § 2265 concerns protection orders, not the asserted conduct. | Plaintiff's § 2265 claim not plausibly connected to the facts pleaded. |
| Whether the complaint meets Iqbal/Twombly pleading standards | Allegations should be sufficient to state a claim. | Complaint is conclusory and lacks plausible factual support. | Complaint fails to plead plausible claims; fails Rule 8/Rule 10 requirements. |
| Whether IFP dismissal is appropriate | IFP status should permit proceeding without prepayment. | Case is frivolous or lacks plausibility; dismissal warranted. | IFP should be denied and the case dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard requires more than conclusory allegations)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must contain facts plausibly showing claim)
- Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2002) (conformance to procedural rules required for pro se litigants)
- Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826 (11th Cir. 2007) (pro se pleadings must meet Rule 8/Rule 10 requirements)
- Holsomback v. White, 133 F.3d 1382 (11th Cir. 1998) (liberal construction does not create valid claims)
- GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, Florida, 132 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 1998) (pro se pleadings must conform to procedural rules)
- Leonard v. FBI, 405 Fed.Appx. 386 (11th Cir. 2010) (frivolous or frivolous-like scalings in IFP cases)
- Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483 (11th Cir. 1997) (dismissal standards under Rule 12(b)(6) aligned with § 1915(e)(2))