Fontaine Leroy Porter v. Governor of the State of Florida, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10051
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:15-cv-00485-WS-CAS
FONTAINE LEROY PORTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
DONIE LEE,
Chief of Police Key West Florida,
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(July 28, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-10051 Date Filed: 07/28/2016 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Fontaine Porter appeals pro se the dismissal of his lawsuit filed under 8
different statutes: (1) 18 U.S.C. § 1831, the Economic Espionage Act, a criminal
statute; (2) Florida Statute § 838.16, commercial bribery, a criminal statute;
(3) Florida Statute § 838.21, disclosure or use of confidential criminal justice
information, a criminal statute; (4) Florida Statute § 766.103, Florida’s medical
consent law; (5) Florida Statute § 90.506, privilege with respect to trade secrets;
(6) Florida Statute § 859.01, poisoning food and water, a criminal statute;
(7) Florida Statute § 784.048, stalking, a criminal statute; and (8) other claims that
could be characterized as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Porter sought three
avenues of relief: (1) that the court initiate prosecution of the Governor of Florida
and other individuals involved with the alleged crimes, (2) that Porter be allowed
to sue the individuals involved, and (3) that Porter be allowed to sue on behalf of
another person, Kelly Nesbitt. His suit was dismissed as frivolous by the district
court.
Porter argues his suit should not have been dismissed as frivolous because
there is not an absence of fact or legal basis. He argues that he is able to present
the court with a rational legal argument to support his claims, and that the case
should be remanded back to the lower court for trial.
Case: 16-10051 Date Filed: 07/28/2016 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

3
We review for abuse of discretion a sua sponte dismissal for frivolity under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir.
2003). Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) states that a claim filed by a person proceeding in
forma pauperis shall be dismissed if the district court determines the action or
appeal is “frivolous or malicious.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A lawsuit is
frivolous if its claims involve factual contentions that are fanciful, fantastic,
irrational, and/or delusional. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33, 112 S. Ct.
1728, 1733, 118 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1992).
Although a pro se litigant generally should be permitted to amend a
complaint, a district court need not allow amendment when it would be futile,
meaning that the complaint as amended would still be properly dismissed or be
immediately subject to summary judgment for the defendant. Cockrell v. Sparks,
510 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007).
The facts in Porter’s complaint could be characterized as stating a claim
under § 1983 because, if taken as true, they allege violations of Porter’s rights by
government officials. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, the claims are frivolous
because they include allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, irrational, and/or
delusional, and the complaint was properly dismissed. Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33,
112 S. Ct. at 1733; Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S. Ct. at 1833; Hughes, 350 F.3d
at 1160. Any amendment in this case would have been futile because Porter’s
Case: 16-10051 Date Filed: 07/28/2016 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4
amended complaint would still have been subject to dismissal. Cockrell, 510 F.3d
at 1310.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 16-10051 Date Filed: 07/28/2016 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --