UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-22315-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ CRUZ,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EDEL RODRIGUEZ, et al.

Defendants. 

____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District 

Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs, ECF No. [3] (“Motion”), filed in conjunction with 

Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. [1] (“Complaint”). The Court has carefully considered the Motion, 

the Complaint, the record in this case, and is otherwise fully advised. 

Plaintiff has not paid the required filing fee and, thus, the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e) are applicable. Fundamental to our system of justice is that the courthouse doors will 

not be closed to persons based on their inability to pay a filing fee. Congress has provided that a 

court “may authorize the commencement . . . or prosecution of any suit, action or proceeding . . . or 

appeal therein, without the prepayment of fees . . . by a person who submits an affidavit that 

includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such 

fees[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306 n.1

(11th Cir. 2004) (interpreting statute to apply to all persons seeking to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”)). 

When a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen whether 

Case 1:22-cv-22315-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 22-cv-22315-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

“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). If the Court determines that the complaint satisfies any of the three 

enumerated circumstances under Section 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss the complaint.

To state a claim for relief, a pleading must contain: “(1) a short and plain statement of the 

grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. A 

complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that 

is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. 

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “[T]o state a plausible claim for relief, the plaintiff[] must 

plead ‘factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 

liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1268 (11th Cir. 

2009) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949). Although a pro se litigant’s pleadings are construed 

more liberally than pleadings drafted by attorneys, “this leniency does not give the court license 

to serve as de facto counsel for a party . . . or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to 

sustain the action.” GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 

1998) (citations omitted). 

Even under the relaxed pleading standard afforded to pro se litigants, Plaintiff’s Complaint 

does not set forth cognizable claims. While styled as a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, Plaintiff fails to assert any claim sounding in a violation of his civil rights. His only 

allegation of supposed wrongdoing is that a nurse and supervisor at a hospital refused to let him 

use nail clippers to clip his mother’s fingernails. ECF No. [1] at 2. Even construing the Complaint 

broadly, Plaintiff fails to allege any misconduct that could conceivably rise to a civil rights 

Case 1:22-cv-22315-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 22-cv-22315-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

3

violation. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2. The Motion, ECF No. [3], is DENIED AS MOOT. Any pending motions are 

DENIED AS MOOT.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on July 26, 2022

 

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Francisco Rodriguez Cruz

15605 SW 295 Terrace

Homestead, Fl 33033

Case 1:22-cv-22315-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 3 of 3