LAWTON

v.

CAMILLUS HOUSE INC.

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

On August 17, 2023, Plaintiff Nishon Latia Lawton (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint, ECF No. , and an Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis”), ECF No. . Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, has not paid the required filing fee, and therefore the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) are applicable.

Pursuant to the statute, courts are permitted to dismiss a suit “any time . . . the court determines that . . . (B) 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). 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). “A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Id. 10(b). More importantly, “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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests[.]” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up).

Courts must “construe pro se pleadings liberally, holding them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.” Arrington v. Green, 757 F. App’x 796, 797 (11th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).

Still, a pro se party must abide by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires that a pleading contain a “short and plain statement of the claim” showing the pleader is entitled to relief. See Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F. 3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021).

Plaintiff has filed a Complaint asserting a claim under the Civil Rights Act, 42. U.S.C. §1983. “To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant deprived him of a right secured under the United States Constitution or federal law and (2) such deprivation occurred under color of state law.” Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F. 3d 734, 737 (11th Cir. 2010).

Plaintiff alleges that “plaintiffs Nishon Latia Lawton and Douglas E. Warren applied

for in two seperate [sic] applications, Rapid Re-Housing administered by CAMILLUS HOUSE INC.” ECF No. at 2. The Complaint continues with allegations that after in-person visits, unanswered emails and phone calls plaintiffs exhausted remedies. Plaintiff further alleges that Camillus House, Inc. “was intrusted [sic] with plaintiff’s private information in the form of social security cards, social security numbers applied to application, birth certificates, expired state and county identification all given in original form in which CAMILLUS HOUSE INC employees demanded copies as a precondition to services being rendered.” Id. Those allegations do not state a viable claim for relief under 42. U.S.C. §1983 because they do not allege that Plaintiff was deprived of a Constitutional or federal right by Defendant and do not allege that Defendant acted

under color of state law. Case No. 23-cv-23142-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. This Case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma Pauperis, ECF No. , is DENIED as moot.

3. The Clerk shall CLOSE the case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on August 18, 2023.

_ f-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Nishon Latia Lawton 525 Market Street Camden, NJ 08102

PRO SE