Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RANDALL LAMONT ROLLE,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00153-MP-AK

ROSEMARY BARKETT, et al,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon the filing of a complaint by an inmate, who is

proceeding pro se, but who has paid the full filing fee. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff is on the Court’s three

strikes list for filing numerous frivolous actions in both the Northern and Middle Districts of

Florida. 

The present cause of action is asserted against United States District Judge Stephan P.

Mickle, United States Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill, Assistant Attorney General Phillip

Edwards, and two Circuit Judges for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for alleged adverse

decisions they made against him concerning his habeas petitions and appeals. Plaintiff also

alleges that these judges were involved in evidentiary decisions that resulted in his conviction in

state court and that they had extra-judicial knowledge of the circumstances of the crimes of

which he was convicted.

The Supreme Court in Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1833, 104 L.

Ed. 2d 338 (1989) recognized that a district court could sua sponte dismiss a case filed in forma

pauperis (pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) if it was satisfied that the action was frivolous or
Page 2 of 3

 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) was redesignated § 1915(e) by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Case No: 4:10-cv-00153-MP-AK

malicious.1 Neitzke recognized two types of cases which may be dismissed, sua sponte. In the

first class are "claim(s) based on an indisputably meritless legal theory," and in the second class

are "those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Id. Within the former are

those cases in which it is either readily apparent that a complaint lacks an arguable basis in law

or that defendants are clearly entitled to immunity from suit. Within the latter are those cases

describing scenarios clearly removed from reality. Cofield v. Alabama Public Service Comm’n,

936 F.2d 512 (11th Cir. 1991)(a judge conducting a frivolity review under section 1915(d) is not

required to assume the truth of the allegations and may dismiss summarily those claims deemed

“far-fetched” and “fantastic”). 

Dismissal under such circumstances has been extended to situations in which a litigant

paid the court's filing fees. In such a situation, the district court in the Southern District of New

York held that “[a] plaintiff asserting fantastic or delusional claims should not, by payment of a

filing fee, obtain a license to consume limited judicial resources and put defendants to effort and

expense.” Tyler v. Carter, 151 F.R.D. 537, 540 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), affirmed 41 F.3d 1500 (2nd

Cir. 1994)

The policies arguing against sua sponte Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals do not apply in

these circumstances. The author of claims as irrational as these cannot be

regarded as subject to the economic incentive to refrain from frivolous actions

imposed by filing fees and court costs upon rational paying litigants. . . . If this

Court cannot order sua sponte dismissal of this complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), no

district court can ever dismiss sua sponte any complaint under the Rule. I do not

think that is the law.

Tyler, 151 F.R.D. at 540. Plaintiff in the case at bar has presented conclusory allegations that are

clearly baseless and are frivolous. No Defendant should be put to the expense of answering such
Page 3 of 3

Case No: 4:10-cv-00153-MP-AK

a complaint, and there is no reason to permit Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Therefore,

summary dismissal of this action is appropriate pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

As further grounds for dismissal, all the defendants are protected by judicial or

prosecutorial immunity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-357, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 1104-

05, 55 L. Ed.2d 331 (1978) (If a judge is acting in his judicial capacity, he is entitled to absolute

immunity from liability for damages under Section 1983 unless he acts in the “clear absence of

all jurisdiction.”); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976); Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d

1271, 1281 (11th Cir. 1999)(prosecuting attorneys are absolutely immune from their acts in

initiating or pursuing criminal prosecution). 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

That Plaintiff's complaint, doc. 1, be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted and as barred by absolute immunity. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of June, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge