United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the required frivolity review
of Plaintiff Wilhy Harpo's (“Plaintiff”)
Complaint [1.1] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
the latest in a series of actions filed in this Court by Mr.
Harpo in which he seeks relief from a dispossessory action
brought against him by Broadstone Maple, LLC
(“Broadstone”) in the Magistrate Court of Fulton
County, Georgia. The Court has remanded each previous case
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g.,
Order, Broadstone Maple, LLC v. Alexander Corporate
Accommodations, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-2774-WSD (N.D.Ga.
August 2, 2016) (Doc. 4). Because Plaintiff is a frequent
filer of frivolous lawsuits, the Court has previously ordered
him “to disclose his full litigation history in any
civil rights complaint and/or [IFP] affidavit that he
files.” See, e.g., Williams v. Harpo,
No. 1:16-cv-12225-WSD (N.D.Ga. 2016) (ECF No. 2 at 2);
Harpo v. City of Atlanta, No. 1:16-cv-1067-WSD
(N.D.Ga. 2016) (ECF No. 2 at 1-2); Harpo v. City of
Atlanta, No. 1:14-cv-2157-WSD (N.D.Ga. 2014) (ECF No. 2
at 1-2); Harpo v. Fulton Cty. Sheriff, No.
1:14-cv-2208-WSD (N.D.Ga. 2014) (ECF No. 2 at 1-2). It
appears Harpo has complied with that requirement in filing
October 17, 2016, Harpo filed his Complaint . In it, Harpo
again seeks to challenge a dispossessory action brought by
Broadstone in the Magistrate Court of Fulton County, Georgia.
(See Compl. at Prayer for Relief).
also alleges that, on July 2, 2016, he was arrested by Deputy
Burnice A. Howard at the Fulton County courthouse, and
charged with willful obstruction of law enforcement officers
by use of threats or violence, in violation of O.C.G.A.
§ 16-10-24(b), disorderly conduct, in violation of
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-39, and criminal trespass, in violation
of O.C.G.A. § 16-7-21. (See Compl. at 22-26).
Harpo included with his Complaint an affidavit by Howard. In
the affidavit, Howard states that Harpo was asked to leave
the courthouse for being disorderly, that he refused multiple
requests to leave, that he resisted arrest by fighting
Howard, and continued resisting arrest after he was
handcuffed. (Id. at 26). Harpo alleges he sustained
multiple injuries during the arrest, including facial
lacerations and head contusions. (Compl. ¶¶ 78). He
also claims poor treatment at the Fulton County Jail,
including lack of access to legal research materials, medical
care, clean and regularly laundered clothing, and cold
drinking water. (Id. ¶ 80).
seeks an emergency restraining order suspending the execution
of a writ of possession on his property. He also asserts over
a dozen claims against Deputy Howard and nine other Fulton
County Sheriff's Office deputies in their official and
individual capacities. These claims include violation of
state and federal RICO laws, false arrest, false
imprisonment, libel, slander, excessive force, terroristic
threats, and “other claims.” (Compl. at Prayer
for Relief). He seeks $500, 000 in punitive damages and $2,
000, 000 in damages from Deputy Howard. (Id.).
must dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if
at any time the court determines the action is frivolous or
malicious or that it fails to state a claim on which relief
can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).
“Failure to state a claim under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard as
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6).” Wilkerson v. H&S, Inc., 366 F.
App'x 49, 51 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Mitchell v.
Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997)). Under
this standard, “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)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
for frivolousness, on the other hand, “‘accords
judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual
power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual
allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless.'” Miller v.
Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). A
claim is frivolous when it “has little or no chance of
success, ” that is, when it appears “from the
face of the complaint that the factual allegations are
‘clearly baseless' or that the legal theories are
‘indisputably meritless.'” Carroll v.
Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993) (quoting
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327).
filed his Complaint pro se. “A document filed
pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro
se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held
to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Nevertheless, a pro se plaintiff must comply with
the threshold requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Beckwith v. Bellsouth Telecomms.
Inc., 146 F. App'x 368, 371 (11th Cir. 2005).
“Even though a pro se complaint should be
construed liberally, a pro se complaint still must
state a claim upon which the Court can grant relief.”
Grigsby v. Thomas, 506 F.Supp.2d 26, 28 (D.D.C.
2007). “[A] district court does not have license to
rewrite a deficient pleading.” Osahar v. U.S.
Postal Serv., 297 F. App'x 863, 864 (11th Cir.