Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

VERNA CONNORS, et al, 

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-00266-RS-GRJ

BAY COUNTY, et al,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiffs initiated this cause of action by filing a partial complaint form that

largely was indecipherable, except for Plaintiffs’ request for $10,000,000,000.00 in

damages from the United States Government. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs filed an incomplete

Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and an incomplete form Motion for

Appointment of Counsel. (Docs. 2 and 3.) Consequently, the Court entered an order

requiring Plaintiffs to file completed forms on or before November 5, 2010. (Doc. 5.) 

The Court again entered another Order to Show Cause (Doc. 7) after Plaintiffs

submitted additional forms that were equally incomplete and indecipherable. (Doc. 6.)

The Court warned Plaintiffs that failure to comply with the Court’s Orders would result in

a recommendation that this lawsuit be dismissed. 

Plaintiffs have filed two new complaints each of which fails to identify the nature

of Plaintiffs’ claims. (Docs. 8 and 9.) As best as can be deciphered from these new

complaints, one of the Plaintiffs (Gordon Vaughn) is claiming that his mail is being

stolen by the other Plaintiff as part of a conspiracy with the U.S. government and that
Page 2 of 4

the U.S. government has caused Plaintiff severe pain through spy satellites. And

despite filing complaints, which contain at best delusional claims, Plaintiffs have not

paid the filing fee nor have the Plaintiffs filed a complete motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis.

The screening process under 28 U.S.C. §1915 applies to non-prisoner pro se

litigants, as here, who are proceeding in forma pauperis. Boyington v. Geo Group, Inc.,

No. 2:09-cv-570-FtM-29SPC, 2009 WL 3157642, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2009), citing

Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2002) (dismissals under 28 U.S.C.

1915 apply to non-prisoners, even if fee assessment provisions do not). In order to

authorize a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis, the court must make two

determinations: first, whether the litigant is unable to pay the costs of commencing this

action; and second, whether the action is frivolous or malicious.” Dycus v. Astrue, No.

CA 08-0727-KD-C, 2009 WL 47497, at *1 (S.D.Ala. Jan. 7, 2009). An application to

proceed in forma pauperis may be denied if the plaintiff either fails to satisfy the poverty

requirement or if plaintiff's claim is frivolous. Martinez v. Kristi Kleaner's Inc., 364 F.3d

1305, 1306 (11th Cir.2004); see also Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 613 (11th

Cir.1997) (stating that a court may dismiss the case if the allegation of poverty is untrue,

or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious).

A plaintiff need not show that he is absolutely destitute to qualify for indigent

status under §1915. Martinez, 364 F.3d at 1307. Instead, courts should consider the

plaintiff's financial situation, including fiscal debts, obligations, dependants, income, and

assets in determining whether to grant or deny an application to proceed in forma

pauperis. Id. Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information for the Court to determine

Case No: 5:10-cv-00266-RS -GRJ
Page 3 of 4

Plaintiff’s poverty, and therefore, the motion for leave to proceed should be denied.

In addition to establishing plaintiff's poverty, the district court must also conduct a

frivolity screening pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1915A. Frivolous claims include claims based

on meritless legal theories, claims with clearly baseless factual contentions and—as is

the case here— “claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 317 (1989) (applying §1915). This circuit has defined a

frivolous claim as being “without arguable merit.“ Harris v. Menendez, 817 F.2d 737,

739 (11th Cir.1987) (quoting Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886, 892 (5th Cir.1976)). 

“Arguable means capable of being convincingly argued. An action or claim in which

‘the plaintiff’s realistic chances of ultimate success are slight’ is not one capable of

being convincingly argued.” Moreland v. Wharton, 899 F.2d 1168, 1170 (11th

Cir.1990), quoting Menendez, 817 F.2d at 740 n. 5. Factual allegations are frivolous for

purpose of 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) when they are clearly baseless and legal theories are

frivolous when they are indisputably meritless. Weeks v. Jones, 100 F.3d 124, 127

(11th Cir.1996). ” Plaintiffs’ complaint falls squarely within the definition of frivolous.

Moreover, because the flaws in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are so numerous and so

fundamental, the Court concludes that granting Plaintiffs a further opportunity to amend

would be futile and would simply be a further waste of scarce and valuable judicial

resources.

After several attempts Plaintiffs have been unable to articulate any discernable

factual allegations or offer any legal theories to support a claim. Further, Plaintiffs have

failed to provide sufficient information for the Court to determine their eligibility to

proceed in forma pauperis. 

Case No: 5:10-cv-00266-RS -GRJ
Page 4 of 4

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED: 

That the Motion for Leave to Proceed (Doc 2) be DENIED, and this cause be

DISMISSED as frivolous and for failure to state a claim for relief.

At Gainesville, Florida, this 30 day of December, 2010. th

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), a party may file specific, written objections to

the proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served with a

copy of this report and recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s

objections within 14 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: 5:10-cv-00266-RS -GRJ