United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division
LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
September 16, 2016, Plaintiff Robert Heard filed his pro
se Complaint (Doc. 1) against Defendants Marty Allen,
Frank Sosebee, Jamie Campbell, the Hall County Sheriff's
Department, and the Gainesville Police Department, alleging
unspecified violations of his constitutional rights pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court on October 4, 2016,
entered an Order (Doc. 4) granting Plaintiff's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and
directing Plaintiff to file a recast complaint setting forth
(1) what each defendant did or did not do to violate his
constitutional rights; (2) when the violation occurred; and
(3) what injury Plaintiff suffered as a result of each
defendant's actions. Plaintiff filed his Amended
Complaint on October 18, 2016. The Court now must review his
Complaint to determine whether it (1) is frivolous or
malicious; (2) fails to state a claim for which relief may be
granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Standard of Review
Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, the Court is required to screen
the complaint and to dismiss it, or any portion thereof, if
it (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim
for which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). A claim is frivolous when it appears from
the face of the complaint that the factual allegations are
“clearly baseless” and the legal theories
“indisputably meritless, ” or when it is apparent
that “the defendant's absolute immunity justifies
dismissal before service of process.” Carroll v.
Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). A complaint
is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim when it
does not include sufficient factual matter, taken as true, to
permit a “reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). However,
since Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his
“pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be
liberally construed.” Boxer X v. Harris, 437
F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).
state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege that (1) an act or omission deprived him of a right,
privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or a
statute of the United States; and (2) the act or omission was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.
Hale v. Tallapoosa County, 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th
Cir. 1995). If a litigant cannot satisfy these requirements
or fails to provide factual allegations in support of his
claim or claims, the complaint is subject to dismissal.
See Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279, 1282-84 (11th
claims appear arise in part from his imprisonment at Valdosta
State Prison (“VSP”) and in part from events that
took place following his release. Plaintiff contends that on
March 5, 2014, Defendant Allen, the warden at VSP, moved him
from H-Building to F-Building for the purpose of having a
Muslim inmate assault Plaintiff. (Doc. 6, p. 1-2). On that
same date, Plaintiff arrived at his sister's resident in
Gainesville, Georgia. Plaintiff then contends that several
days later, between March 8 and 10, Defendant Allen conspired
with Defendant Sosebee, Plaintiff's cousin, and Defendant
Campbell, an attorney in Gainesville, Georgia, to file a
lawsuit against Plaintiff. (Id.).
next contends that he contacted the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (“FBI”) on September 9, 2014. The
FBI allegedly informed Plaintiff that the Hall County
Sheriff's Department and the Gainesville Police
Department had possession of Plaintiff's money and
property. (Id. at p. 3). Plaintiff further avers
that in October 2014, two Sheriff's deputies removed him
from the Hall County District Attorney's office.
Plaintiff claims that on September 26, 2014, he was hit by a
white pickup truck bearing government tags. (Id. at
p. 4). He states that the truck was later found but not the
driver. (Id.). In 2015, some unnamed individual
purportedly contacted him suggesting that if this unknown
person were to admit to being responsible for hitting
Plaintiff, they then could “split the money” and
each have $5 million in a safe deposit box. (Id.).
According to Plaintiff, once Defendants learned that “I
know . . . [Defendant Campbell] takes money and . . . told me
his was in Mexico.” (Id.).
alleges that June or July 2015 he was assaulted again when a
law enforcement officer took his “writings” and
sold them. (Id.).
contends that as a result of Defendants' conspiracy, he
has “been living in the streets of Gainesville, Ga. as
a deterant [sic] to stop me from filing suits.”
(Id. at p. 5). He has been unable to obtain a job or
housing because every time he “appl[ies] for a house,
loan or whatever it is blocked by them.”
(Id.). According to Plaintiff, the Sheriff's
Department further prevented him from using the law library
and barred him from the courthouse. (Id.).
summation, Plaintiff states “that being clothed with
law the defendants violated my constitutional rights,
conspired to deny me due process and equal protection, as a
black male that has no recourse in any other place but
court.” (Id.). Further, by failing to perform
their duties, Defendants caused Plaintiff “unmerited
duress, abuse, I can't bathe, I have had one bath since
April 1, 2016.” (Id. at p. 5-6). Plaintiff
claims that Defendants were motivated to harm Plaintiff by
their desire to become millionaires. (Id. at p. 6).