UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 23-cv-21573-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ CRUZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

Rebecca, Publix Employee

Defendant. ______________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record. On April 27, 2023, Plaintiff Francisco Rodriguez Cruz (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint, ECF No. [1], and an Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis”), ECF No. [3]. Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, has not paid the required filing fee, and therefore the screening provisions of

(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.”

(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.”

(b). More importantly, “a complaint must contain sufficient Iqbal,

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests[.]” Twombly,

(cleaned up). Courts must “construe pro se pleadings liberally, holding them to a less stringent standard

than those drafted by attorneys.” Arrington v. Green,

, 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,

(11th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff has filed his Complaint with the Court asserting a claim under the Civil Rights Act, 42. U.S.C. §1983. “To state a claim under

, 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,

(11th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff alleges that “[on] march 23 2023 between 7 55 pm and 8 05 pm rebecca approached the customer service desk where [he] was making a purchase and mentioned

the word fraud[.]” ECF No. [1] at 2. 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. 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. [3], is DENIED as moot. 3. The Clerk shall CLOSE the case. Case No. 23-cv-21573-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on April 27, 2023.

BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Francisco Rodriguez Cruz

Terrace Homestead, FL 33033 Pro Se