UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 20-61134-CIV-SINGHAL

JERMAINE CLAYTON WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE has come before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis (DE [13]), and Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court without 

Prepaying Fees or Costs (DE [14]), both filed November 3, 2020. Courts are permitted 

to authorize a party to proceed in forma pauperis in any suit, or appeal thereof, so long 

as the party complies with the proscriptions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff, a pro se

litigant, has filed an Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or 

Costs (DE [14]), therefore, the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) are applicable.

On October 14, 2020, this Court directed Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or submit an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by an affidavit by October 28, 

2020; accordingly, the instant motions are untimely. Additionally, this Court granted 

Plaintiff an extension to perfect service upon the Defendants by November 9, 2020. 

Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s Order (DE [12]). This Court, however,

acknowledges that Plaintiff is incarcerated and has complied with the requirements of 28 

Case 0:20-cv-61134-AHS Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 1 of 5
2

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) by providing an Affidavit (DE [13]) and a Ledger (DE [14]). 

Additionally, on November 13, 2020 Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Action and Request to waive 

service of summons” (DE [15]), which in essence operates as a self-executing extension 

of the deadlines set by this Court in the Order (DE [12]).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), courts are permitted to dismiss a suit “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Generally, pro se

complaints are held to a less stringent pleading standard than pleadings drafted by 

lawyers. See Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). 

However, a court may not “serve as de facto counsel for a party, or . . . rewrite an 

otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” GJR Invs. v. Cty. of Escambia, 

132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).

To state a claim, a pleading in a civil action must contain “a short and plain 

statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . [and] show[ ] that the pleader is 

entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(2). Although a plaintiff need not provide 

“detailed factual allegations,” a plaintiff’s complaint must provide “more than labels and 

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

678 (2009) (explaining that Rule 8(a)(2)’s pleading standard “demands more than an 

unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”). Furthermore, vague and 

conclusory statements are insufficient under the Federal Rules. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

Case 0:20-cv-61134-AHS Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 2 of 5
3

678–679. “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).

Plaintiff files the Complaint (DE [1]) seeking declaratory and supplemental relief 

with regard to Defendants’ purported misrepresentations of Plaintiff’s data indexed under 

Florida Criminal History File No. 04595556. Plaintiff succinctly recites the data, claims it 

is incorrect and duplicative, and further demands Defendants delete any and all factual 

misrepresentations thus indexed, without specifying what misrepresentations have 

purportedly been made. Plaintiff’s Complaint (DE [1]) is vague, conclusory, and fails to 

state a claim. Even under the relaxed pleading standard afforded pro se litigants, 

Plaintiff’s Complaint (DE [1]) fails to include facts or state a claim on which relief may be 

granted. See Abele v. Tolbert, 130 Fed. Appx. 342, 343 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining when 

a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, a court must construe plaintiff's complaint more liberally 

than if it had been drafted by a lawyer).

Moreover, Plaintiff’s Complaint (DE [1]) fails to state a claim over which this Court 

has subject matter jurisdiction. The Court has a responsibility to ensure jurisdiction over 

the action. Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 2001). Federal 

courts are “empowered to hear only those cases within the judicial power of the United 

States as defined by Article III of the Constitution,” and which have been entrusted to 

them by a jurisdictional grant authorized by Congress. Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco 

Co., 168 F.3d 405, 409 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 

Case 0:20-cv-61134-AHS Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 3 of 5
4

(11th Cir. 1994)). Accordingly, Aonce a federal court determines that it is without subject 

matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue. Id. at 410.

Here, Plaintiff alleges Defendants have willfully failed to correct purported 

misrepresentations in his criminal record in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the 

National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact of 1998, and the Privacy Act of 1974. 

Plaintiff claims this Court has original jurisdiction of all actions brought under the 

Constitution. After a careful reading of Plaintiff’s Complaint (DE [1]), however, it is 

apparent that Plaintiff seeks to correct his criminal history record with the Florida 

Department of Law Enforcement. To do so, Plaintiff must “contact the agency submitting 

that part of the record in question.” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 11C-8.001(5). The agency 

is then responsible for making any determination on the merits of such assertions. Id. 

The record indicates Plaintiff has already taken such steps. See (Compl. (DE [1-1], Ex. 

5, at 72) (“Please be advised that the fact that you may personally disagree with the 

reason for an arrest, the validity of any charges filed, or the fairness of the disposition of 

those charges, is not, by itself, a sufficient basis upon which this Department (FDLE) can 

change your criminal record.”). Furthermore, this Court need not make a declaration as 

to Plaintiff’s right to review and correct his Florida Criminal Record history as the Florida 

Department of Law Enforcement will carefully consider Plaintiff’s claims upon the 

submission of any official documentation to support it. Id. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (DE [1]) is DISMISSED

and Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (DE [13]) and Plaintiff’s Application 

Case 0:20-cv-61134-AHS Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 4 of 5
5

to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (DE [14]) are DENIED AS 

MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and DENY AS MOOT any 

pending motions.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 13th day of

November 2020.

Copies furnished to counsel of record via CM/ECF

Case 0:20-cv-61134-AHS Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 5 of 5