United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
CHRISTOPHER B. WILSON, Plaintiff,
JIM VANALSTINE, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge J. Clay
Fuller's Final Report and Recommendation 
(“R&R”), recommending that this action be
dismissed for failure to state a claim. Also before the Court
are Plaintiff Christopher B. Wilson's
(“Plaintiff”) Objections  to the R&R.
January 25, 2017, Plaintiff, a prisoner, filed his pro
se Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 . On March 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed his First Amended
Complaint  (“First Amended Complaint”),
asserting approximately sixteen claims against six
defendants, including Defendant Jim Vanalstine
(“Defendant”). On June 28, 2017, the Court
dismissed Plaintiff's federal claims for failure to state
a claim and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over Plaintiff's state law claims. ( (the “June
28 Order”)). The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file
an amended complaint to remedy the deficiencies identified in
the Court's June 28 Order. ( at 16). The Court
provided Plaintiff with detailed instructions about the
amended complaint required, and warned him that his failure
to comply with the instructions would result in dismissal:
Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint, if filed,
will supersede and replace his current Complaint.
Plaintiff's amended complaint must (1) assert each claim
in a separate numbered count, (2) clearly identify the
specific defendant(s) against whom each claim is asserted,
(3) clearly explain the factual allegations supporting each
claim and their application to each defendant against whom
the claim is asserted, and (4) avoid vague, generalized,
conclusory, contradictory or irrelevant assertions. Plaintiff
should thoroughly describe the conduct and specific offenses
for which he was arrested, so that the Court can determine
whether there was probable cause for his arrest.
Plaintiff's allegations and claims should be presented
“with such clarity and precision that [each] defendant
will be able to discern what the plaintiff is claiming
[against him specifically] and to frame a responsive
pleading.” Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trustees of
Cent. Florida Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir.
1996). The Court will dismiss this action if Plaintiff fails
to (1) file a properly-pled amended complaint on or before
July 21, 2017, (2) comply with the Court's instructions
in this Order, or (3) comply with the Local Rules of this
( at 16-17). The Court also instructed Plaintiff to
“narrow, and specifically describe, the claims he
asserts, ” including because “many of the
claims are confusing, unclear, and appear to overlap.”
( at 16 n.7).
4, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint ,
asserting claims against Defendant for violations of the
First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments;
violations of Defendant's “oath of office”
under 5 U.S.C. § 3331; “abusive litigation in
violation of due process under color of law (18 U.S.C.
242)”; “conspiracy against rigihts [sic], ”
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241; fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. 1001; “abuse in (and of) power”;
violations of six provisions of the Georgia Constitution;
“tampering with evidence” and “false
statements, ” in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-10-20;
“public oath, ” in violation of O.C.G.A. §
16-10-10; “perjury in 1st degree, ” in violation
of O.C.G.A. § 17-1-4; and intentional infliction of
emotional distress under Georgia law. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant “conceal[ed] [a] dash-cam video” and
offered “false statements and perjured testimony,
” causing Plaintiff to be indicted and confined for
approximately ten and a half months “on false and
fabricated charges.” (Sec. Am. Compl. at
2-3). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's
false statements were made in “arrest warrants”
and “police reports, ” and that Defendant
committed perjury “before [a] grand jury.” (Sec.
Am. Compl. at 5). Plaintiff alleges that he suffered
“physical and emotional injuries” during his
confinement, including because he was “denied medical
treatment.” (Sec. Am. Compl. at 5). The Second Amended
Complaint does not elaborate on these allegations.
31, 2017, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint and issued his R&R, finding that
this action should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
for failure to state a plausible claim for relief. The
Magistrate Judge found that, to the extent Plaintiff asserts
a malicious prosecution claim, “such a claim is
premature until Plaintiff shows that the charges arising from
his disputed arrest have terminated in his favor, and to date
Plaintiff has not made the necessary showing.” (R&R
at 5). On August 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Objections to
the R&R, stating that “his criminal case was
adjudicated on June 26, 2017, as the aggravated assault was
dismissed and the other charges were plead [sic] to under
nolo-contenderes.” ( at 1). Plaintiff acknowledged
that he did not previously notify the Court of this fact, but
failed to offer any explanation for his untimely disclosure.
( at 1). Plaintiff argued that the alleged disposition of
his underlying criminal case “equates to being
terminated in his favor, ” and that his malicious
prosecution claim should thus be permitted to proceed. (
Frivolity Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
federal court must screen “a complaint in a civil
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court is
required to dismiss the complaint if it is “frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, ” or if it “seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b). A claim is frivolous, and must be dismissed,
where it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact.” Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100
(11th Cir. 2008). To state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, “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)). Mere
“labels and conclusions” are insufficient.
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(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). This
requires more than the “mere possibility of
misconduct.” Am. Dental, 605 F.3d at 1290
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). The well-pled
allegations must “nudge [plaintiff's] claims
across the line from conceivable to plausible.”
Id. at 1289 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
filed his Second Amended 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). 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, 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 Fed.Appx. 863, 864 (11th Cir.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or
modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681
F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S.
1112 (1983). A district judge “shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). With
respect to those findings and recommendations to which
objections have not been ...