UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

DUSTIN PARRISH, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 8:25-cv-1150-SDM-NHA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants. / ORDER Parrish’s complaint alleges that the defendants are violating his Fourth Amendment rights while he is detained in the Hillsborough County jail. Parrish moves both for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for a temporary restraining order. (Docs. 2 and 3) The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act requires dismissal of an in forma pauperis prisoner’s action “if the allegation of poverty is untrue” or if the complaint “is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

(e). Although entitled to a generous interpretation, Haines v. Kerner,

(1972) (per

curiam), this pro se complaint is frivolous. Parrish asserts a fanciful claim, specifically, (1) that unknown Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are “illegally” “surveilling” him without a warrant with what he characterizes as a “body text” and with thermal imaging, (2) that this surveillance is happening while he is detained inside the county jail, and (3) that the officers have “threatened me to not make federal authorities aware” of this surveillance. (Doc. 1 at 3-4) Parrish requests both damages and an injunction to “turn off this electronic surveillance.” (Doc. 1 at 5) Parrish’s claim is frivolous under Section 1915(e).” As shown above, Parrish fails to state a claim for relief. Amendment of the action would prove futile because Parrish can state no valid Section 1983 claim for relief. See Bryant v. Dupree,

, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001) (“A district court need not, however, allow an amendment (1) where there has been undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed; (2) where allowing amendment would cause undue prejudice to the opposing party; or (3) where amendment would be futile.”’). The complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED as frivolous under

(e). The motion (Doc. 2) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT. The motion (Doc. 3) for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. The clerk must enter a judgment of dismissal against Parrish and CLOSE this case. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on May 8, 2025.

STEVEND.MERRYDAY □□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

" According to the information available online through the clerk of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court, which is accessible by searching Parrish’s name at https://hover.hillsclerk.com/html/case/case Search.html, on April 28, 2025, the circuit court appointed a doctor to evaluate Parrish for competency to proceed.

-2-