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 Plaintiffs Donovan Earl Crawford and Claudine Elena
Crawford's (“Plaintiffs”) “Complaint of
Irrepairable [sic] Damage Planned by Defendants” 
and “Notice and Application for Emergency Preliminary
Injunction” , which the Court construes liberally
and together as Plaintiffs' Complaint.
October 26, 2015, Plaintiffs filed in the Superior Court of
Fulton County, Georgia, a petition seeking to enjoin
Defendants from foreclosing on their home. ( at 3).
October 6, 2016, the Fulton County Superior Court dismissed
Plaintiffs' petition. (Id.). Plaintiffs
September 8, 2017, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the
Fulton County Superior Court order dismissing Plaintiffs'
petition. (Id. at 4).
September 18, 2017, Plaintiffs moved, in the Georgia Court of
Appeals, for reconsideration of its September 8th order.
September 29, 2017, Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se,
filed in this Court an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) and their Complaint. In it,
Plaintiffs summarize the proceedings in state court and seek
to enjoin Defendants from foreclosing on their home “on
the grounds that an injunction is needed until the
application for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals in
the State of Georgia is determined.” (Id. at
September 29, 2017, Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker granted
Plaintiffs' IFP Application and directed the Clerk of
Court to submit this action to the Court for review of
Plaintiffs' Complaint. ().
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
Fed.Appx. 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.'” See 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 their 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 Fed.Appx. 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, 5 ...