Case: 18-12274 Date Filed: 12/07/2018 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-12274
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:18-cv-00411-MCR-CJK
PATRICK ANTHONY RIBBING,
Chief, CSI Instructor to Tribal Ambassadors, and Emissary Personnel,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF FLORIDA,
ALL PERSONS IN THE COURTROOM,
On the dates, July 8, 2016; July 18, 2016; August 18, 2016; as accomplices.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(December 7, 2018)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 18-12274 Date Filed: 12/07/2018 Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Ribbing, proceeding pro se, * appeals the district court’s sua sponte
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action against the State of Florida and “all
persons in the courtroom.” No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
Construed liberally, Ribbing’s complaint alleges these facts. Ribbing was
summoned to appear in court several times after Ribbing completed his probation
requirements. Ribbing alleges that all the people in the courtroom who stood up
when the judges entered were in collusion to commit a classified operation.
Ribbing says he was later summoned again to appear before a “pretend official in a
kangaroo court” and all parties involved were “culturally incompetent.” Ribbing
seeks relief under multiple sources, including various criminal statutes, the First
Amendment, the Iroquois Confederacy Constitution, the Louisiana Purchase, the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, Title IX, the Ex-Patriot Act, and Article III of the United States
Constitution. As relief, Ribbing requests that the district court overturn two cases
in which Ribbing was named as a party.
*
We construe liberally pro se pleadings. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263
(11th Cir. 1998).
2
Case: 18-12274 Date Filed: 12/07/2018 Page: 3 of 4
The magistrate judge recommended that Ribbing’s complaint be dismissed
for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). After
considering Ribbing’s objections, the district court adopted the magistrate’s report
and recommendation and dismissed Ribbing’s complaint.
We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal under section
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Evans v. Ga. Reg’l Hosp., 850 F.3d
1248, 1253 (11th Cir. 2017). In reviewing a dismissal under section
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), we apply the same standard that applies to dismissals under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Id.
To survive dismissal, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). To state a claim for relief
under section 1983, a plaintiff must show that he was deprived of a federal right by
a person acting under the color of state law. Griffin v. City of Opa-Locka, 261
F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001).
The district court committed no error in dismissing Ribbing’s complaint for
failure to state a claim. Ribbing’s complaint, liberally construed, alleges no facts
that would support a plausible claim that Ribbing was entitled to relief. Moreover,
because amendment would have been futile, the district court was under no
3
Case: 18-12274 Date Filed: 12/07/2018 Page: 4 of 4
obligation to provide Ribbing an opportunity to amend before dismissing the
complaint. See Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1248 (11th Cir.
2015).
AFFIRMED.
4