UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-61711-CIV-SINGHAL

MARLOWE D. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,

ROBERT W. RUNCIE, RICHARD VOLPI,

JEFFERY MOQUIN, DOUG GRIFFIN,

CRAIG KOWLASKI, ERIK LOPEZ, ERIC CHISEM,

and SUSAN COOPER, individually and in their

official capacities,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte upon review of the record. Plaintiff, 

Marlowe D. Robinson (“Robinson”) is a former employee of the Broward County School 

District whose employment was terminated in May 2018. Robinson filed his Complaint 

(DE [1]) on September 12, 2022. He applied for and was granted leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis. (DE [10]). 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Section 1915 “is intended to provide all indigent litigants with meaningful access 

to courts by removing the obstacle of poverty.” Taliaferro v. United States, 677 Fed. Appx.

536, 537 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). 

“Congress recognized, however, that an indigent litigant, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an 

economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous or repetitive lawsuits. To prevent such 

frivolous or abusive litigation, Congress authorized the federal courts to dismiss IFP 

actions sua sponte on various grounds.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e).

Case 0:22-cv-61711-AHS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 1 of 5
2

A complaint of an indigent person may be dismissed if it “is frivolous, malicious, or 

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Although the statute

refers specifically to actions filed by prisoners, the Eleventh Circuit has held that “district 

courts have the power to screen complaints filed by all IFP litigants, prisoners and nonprisoners alike.” Taliaferro, 677 Fed. Appx. at 537 (citing Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 

1259–60 (11th Cir. 2002) (“find[ing] no error” in the district court’s dismissal of a nonprisoner’s complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii))).

The Court has extensively reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, as well as a previous

Complaint that was dismissed by Judge Smith on June 2, 2020. See Marlowe D. 

Robinson v. Broward County School District, 19-63009-CIV-Smith (“Marlowe I”). For the 

reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the present Complaint should be dismissed 

with prejudice.

Prior to his termination, Plaintiff filed numerous grievances with various agencies 

including the School Board Human Resources Department, OSHA, and the Florida Public 

Employees Relations Commission (“PERC”). He filed seven grievances about his

supervisor between February 18, 2016, and April 7, 2017. (DE [1] ¶ 45.) The grievances 

included complaints about “verbal abuse” committed by others against third persons,

racial bias in the School Board’s internal training and promotion exams, the failure to 

promote Plaintiff, and the failure to provide overtime opportunities. (Id. ¶¶ 43-47). 

Plaintiff’s employment was terminated on May 9, 2018.

The Complaint in Marlow I raised the identical factual allegations as the present 

Complaint but attempted to raise only three claims. Judge Smith dismissed Marlowe I on 

procedural and substantive grounds. The Complaint in that case failed to comply with 

Case 0:22-cv-61711-AHS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 2 of 5
3

Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Plaintiff brought three 

different claims but his allegations were not separated and stated in separate counts.

Plaintiff was advised that “[e]ach numbered paragraph should be limited, as far as 

practicable, to a single set of circumstances, and each claim founded on a separate 

transaction or occurrence be stated in a separate count.” Marlowe I, Order Granting 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (DE [34]) (Jun. 2, 2020). Judge 

Smith also held that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief under the Family Medical 

Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or for unpaid wages. (Id.) In particular, 

Judge Smith found that the Complaint failed to allege whether Plaintiff exhausted his 

administrative remedies by filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission. (Id. p. 34). Judge Smith dismissed the Complaint but granted Plaintiff leave 

to amend by June 16, 2020. When Plaintiff failed to timely amend his Complaint, Judge 

Smith dismissed the case without prejudice. Marlowe I, Order of Dismissal (Jul. 14, 2020).

More than two years later, Plaintiff filed the present case, this time naming as 

Defendants the Broward County School Board, along with numerous officials in their 

official and individual capacities. The Complaint, again, fails to comply with the rules of 

pleading and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The Complaint in the present case is a classic shotgun pleading. Each of the 14 

counts incorporates the allegations of the preceding counts. Many of the counts claim 

“Unfair Labor Violations” but fail to specify a statutory or common law cause of action.

The Complaint meets the classic definition of a shotgun pleading in that it fails “to give 

the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which 

each claim rests.” Weiland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321

(11th Cir. 2015). The Complaint can be dismissed on that basis alone. But the most 

Case 0:22-cv-61711-AHS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 3 of 5
4

important deficiency of Plaintiff’s present Complaint is that whatever claims might be 

lurking in the Complaint are barred by the statute of limitations.

Every act complained of by Plaintiff occurred between 2015 and 2017, except his 

termination, which occurred in May 2018. Whatever claims Plaintiff has concerning the 

acts that took place between 2015 and 2017 are barred by the general four year statute 

of limitation. Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3). As for his wrongful termination claims, Plaintiff claims 

he was terminated on the basis of his race and disability. Plaintiff alleges that he filed a 

complaint with the EEOC about his ADA claims and received a right to sue letter in 

September 2017. Plaintiff gives no indication that he filed a claim with the EEOC about 

his alleged wrongful termination. As such, the statute of limitations began to run on the 

date of his termination or within 90 days of receiving the right to sue letter. Arrington v. 

United Parcel Service, Inc., 2009 WL 10668750, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2009). Gant v. 

Jefferson Energy Co-op., 348 Fed. Appx. 433 (11th Cir. 2009). In either case, the statute 

of limitations ran long before Plaintiff filed the present action.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s action is properly dismissed with prejudice and 

without leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit arising from his employment with the 

Broward County School board in 2019 which was dismissed with leave to amend. This is 

his second bite at the apple and he still fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. And because the statute of limitations has clearly run, any amendment would be 

futile. Accordingly, it is hereby

Case 0:22-cv-61711-AHS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 4 of 5
5

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

WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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 4th day of 

October 2022.

Copy furnished Plaintiff, pro se,

via US Mail

Case 0:22-cv-61711-AHS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 5 of 5