United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DLTFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the required frivolity review,
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), of Plaintiff Darren
Petty's (“Plaintiff”) Complaint .
August 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Application for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP
Application”) . On August 12, 2016, Magistrate Judge
Russell G. Vineyard granted Plaintiff's IFP Application
and submitted Plaintiff's pro se Complaint 
to this Court for a frivolity review. ().
three-page Complaint alleges he was driving home on the night
of August 23, 2013. Defendant Officer Long stopped him for
“failure to maintain lane.” (Compl. at 1).
Officer Long administered a sobriety test, concluded that
Plaintiff was drunk, and arrested him for driving while
intoxicated. Approximately one year later, a jury found
Plaintiff not guilty of the offense charged. Plaintiff
asserts that Officer Long admitted, at trial, that Plaintiff
passed the sobriety test he took on the night of his arrest.
Plaintiff states further that “police dash cam
video” shows he did not commit a traffic violation.
(Compl. at 1). Plaintiff asserts claims, under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, for false arrest, false imprisonment, and fraud.
(Compl. at 1).
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). “[I]f the district
court sees that an affirmative defense would defeat the
action, a [dismissal on the grounds of frivolity] is
allowed.” Clark v. State of Ga. Pardons &
Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 640 (11th Cir. 1990).
filed pro se must be construed liberally and are
“held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Nevertheless, “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.
statute of limitations for a section 1983 claim arising out
of events occurring in Georgia is two years.” Hafez
v. Madison, 348 F. App'x 465, 467 (11th Cir. 2009).
The statute of limitations begins to run on false
imprisonment and false arrest claims “at the time the
claimant becomes detained pursuant to legal process.”
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 397 (2007); see
Burgest v. McAfee, 264 F. App'x 850, 852 (11th Cir.
2008); Long v. Dietrich, No. 1:10-cv-02859, 2012 WL
4478802, at *6 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 20, 2012); Frazier v.
Bibb Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, No. 506-cv-131, 2007
WL 951707, at *1 n.1 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 28, 2007).
Plaintiff's Complaint liberally, Plaintiff alleges that,
on August 23, 2013, he was arrested, in Georgia, without a
warrant. Georgia law provides:
In every case of an arrest without a warrant, the person
arresting shall, without delay, convey the offender before
the most convenient judicial officer authorized to receive an
affidavit and issue a warrant. . . . [A]ny person who is not
brought before such ...