United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division
ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
STAN BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
who is currently incarcerated at Georgia State Prison
(“GSP”) in Reidsville, Georgia, submitted a
Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contesting
certain conditions of his confinement. (Doc. 1.) The Court
ordered Plaintiff to amend his Complaint before frivolity
review, (doc. 8), and Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended
Complaint, (doc. 11). For the reasons set forth below, I
RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS
without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint for
failure to follow this Court's Order and failure to state
a claim, and DIRECT the Clerk of Court to
CLOSE this case. Additionally, I
RECOMMEND the Court DENY
Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
filed his original Complaint, along with a Motion to Proceed
in Forma Pauperis, on May 15, 2017. (Docs. 1, 2.)
The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion, but before
conducting the requisite frivolity review under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1), the Court directed Plaintiff to amend his
Complaint. (Doc. 8.) The Court informed Plaintiff that
“in its current form [his Complaint] fails to state a
viable claim and is due to be dismissed.” (Id.
at p. 4.) Furthermore, the Court advised Plaintiff that his
Complaint was an impermissible “shotgun pleading”
and warned him that he “may not join unrelated claims
and various defendants unless the claims ‘arise out of
the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions
or occurrences.” (Id. at pp. 3-4.)
Additionally, the Court directed Plaintiff to follow a
detailed list of specific instructions on how to properly
draft his Amended Complaint. (Id. at pp. 4-5.)
timely filed an Amended Complaint on July 21, 2017. (Doc. 9.)
However, while his attachments were limited to the
appropriate number of pages, Plaintiff failed to heed the
Court's other specific instructions and submitted yet
another shotgun pleading. Further, Plaintiff still fails to
limit his claims to those arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences. Plaintiff includes: details concerning the cell
conditions in the K-2 building at GSP, (id. at pp.
13-16, 18-20); several allegations about his cell
conditions in the G-4 building at GSP, (id. at p.
19-20); and various failure to protect claims,
deliberate indifference to medical needs claims, excessive
force claims, retaliation claims related to his grievance
filings, and First Amendment claims, (id. at pp.
seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis. Under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the Court may authorize the
filing of a civil lawsuit without the prepayment of fees if
the plaintiff submits an affidavit that includes a statement
of all of his assets, shows an inability to pay the filing
fee, and also includes a statement of the nature of the
action which shows that he is entitled to redress. Even if
the plaintiff proves indigence, the Court must dismiss the
action if it is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). Additionally, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review a complaint in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity.
Upon such screening, the Court must dismiss a complaint, or
any portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or which
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Court looks to the instructions for pleading contained in the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when reviewing a Complaint
on an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (“A pleading that states
a claim for relief must contain [among other things] . . . a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 10
(requiring that claims be set forth in numbered paragraphs,
each limited to a single set of circumstances). Further, a
claim is frivolous under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) “if
it is ‘without arguable merit either in law or
fact.'” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528,
531 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Bilal v. Driver, 251
F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001)).
a complaint fails to state a claim under Section
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable
to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Thompson v. Rundle, 393 F. App'x 675,
678 (11th Cir. 2010). Under that standard, this Court must
determine whether the complaint contains “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 plaintiff must assert “more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not” suffice. Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555. Section 1915 also “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.” Bilal, 251
F.3d at 1349 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 327 (1989)).
analysis, the Court will abide by the long-standing principle
that the pleadings of unrepresented parties are held to a
less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys and,
therefore, must be liberally construed. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Boxer X v.
Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006)
(“Pro se pleadings are held to a less
stringent standard than pleadings drafted by
attorneys[.]”) (quoting Hughes v. Lott, 350
F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003)). However, Plaintiff's
unrepresented status will not excuse mistakes regarding
procedural rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S.
106, 113 (1993) (“We have never suggested that
procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be
interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed
Dismissal for Failure to Follow this Court's
Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to amend his
Complaint and provided detailed instructions as to how
Plaintiff could amend to properly state a claim. Plaintiff
was cautioned that his failure to file an appropriate Amended
Complaint will result in “[dismissal for] failure to
follow a court order.” (Doc. 8, p. 5.) Plaintiff,
however, ignored the Court's instructions and instead
re-submitted a Complaint materially similar to his original
Plaintiff failed to follow this Court's orders to:
“(1) draft his Amended Complaint on the [provided]
complaint form”; “(4) write legibly”;
“(7) only assert claims that arose from the same
transaction or occurrence or series of related transactions
or occurrences”; “(8) clearly identify each
defendant responsible for each alleged violation”;
“(9) omit all legal argument or conclusions”;
“(10) provide complete information on the