Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

VICKI WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv261-SPM/WCS

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

FLORIDA,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS and 

AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, who is pro se, submitted a civil rights complaint on June 25, 2010. Doc.

1. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee for this case nor did she submit an in forma

pauperis motion with the required supporting financial affidavit. I entered a report and

recommendation on July 2, 2010, doc. 3, recommending dismissal. I noted in that

report and recommendation that Plaintiff "has frequently sought to initiate cases in this

Court, and she has frequently been advised that a civil action 'shall not be filed by the

clerk until the fee is paid as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914, unless the complaint . . . is

accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.' " Doc. 3, quoting N.D.
Page 2 of 3

Fla. Loc. R. 5.1(H). Because Plaintiff neither paid the fee nor filed an in forma pauperis

motion, I recommended the case be dismissed. Doc. 3.

Plaintiff has now filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, doc. 5. 

The motion is granted. However, that does not change the fact that the complaint, doc.

1, construed along with the recent submission of "statement of facts," doc. 4, fail to state

a claim and should be summarily dismissed. Indeed, I noted in the original report and

recommendation that "even if Plaintiff were to submit an in forma pauperis motion, the

recommendation for dismissal would not be changed." Doc. 3. 

Federal Courts have authority to dismiss a case filed in forma pauperis, if it is

satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. The Supreme Court has recognized

two types of cases which may be dismissed, sua sponte, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(d). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1833, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338

(1989). The first class are "claim(s) based on an indisputably meritless legal theory,"

and the second class contain "claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." 

Id. This case meets both classes it it lacks an arguable basis in law and is also clearly

removed from reality. Sultenfuss v. Snow, 894 F.2d 1277 (11th Cir. 1990), citing

Neitzke. Dismissal is still appropriate.

Case No. 4:10cv261-SPM/WCS
Page 3 of 3

ORDER

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for in forma pauperis status,

doc. 5, is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall file the complaint without payment of the

filing fee for this case.

RECOMMENDATION

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this action be

DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on July 9, 2010.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv261-SPM/WCS