United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Waycross Division
ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
STAN BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
currently incarcerated at Ware State Prison in Waycross,
Georgia, filed this cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, contesting the criminal proceedings against him.
(Docs. 1, 9.) For the reasons that follow, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Docs. 2, 10.)
Furthermore, I RECOMMEND the Court
DISMISS with prejudice Plaintiff's
claims against all Defendants, DIRECT the
Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter
the appropriate judgment of dismissal, and
DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma
filed this cause of action on August 11, 2017, along with a
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.
(Docs. 1, 2.) The Court then ordered Plaintiff to amend his
complaint because it referred to non-existent
“exhibits” in the fact section and was due to be
dismissed in the original form. (Doc. 3.) In his Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff makes allegations against twelve
different Defendants regarding their involvement in an
allegedly unlawful criminal prosecution of him. (Doc. 9.)
Plaintiff, a convicted state prisoner, asserts that
“[g]overnment agents and employees of the State of
Georgia, County of Douglas, County of Gwinnett, and City of
Douglasville” breached their duty “to uphold,
defend, and protect [his] inalienable rights” in their
case against him. (Id. at pp. 4, 5.) Plaintiff avers
that Defendants violated a laundry list of federal
constitutional and statutory provisions in taking actions
against him: Article I § 10; Article III §§ 1,
2; Article VI §§ 2, 3; the First, Fourth, Fifth,
Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments; 18 U.S.C.
§§ 241, 242, 1001, 1621, 1622, 2381, 2384, 1031,
1341, 1201, 2071, 912, and 994; and 42 U.S.C. §§
1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986. (Doc. 9-3.)
October 19, 2000, Plaintiff contends Defendants conspired to
fraudulently execute an arrest warrant without probable cause
and without having filed “lawful oath[s] of office with
the Secretary of State of Georgia.” (Doc. 9-5, pp. 1,
4, 5.) This alleged conspiracy continued into Plaintiff's
January 2001 trial and though his appeals until May 2002.
(Id. at pp. 3-4.) As best the Court can discern,
Plaintiff asserts Defendant Judges Emerson, James, and Camp
all violated Plaintiff's due process rights and committed
fraud against him by signing arrest warrants that lacked
probable cause and by failing to inform Plaintiff of the
charges against him. (Doc. 9-4, pp. 1, 2, 4; Doc. 9-5, pp.
1-4.) Plaintiff asserts Defendant District Attorney McDade
falsely imprisoned Plaintiff and unlawfully prosecuted him
without probable cause and due process. (Doc. 9-4, p. 3.)
Plaintiff asserts Defendant Deputy Taylor falsely identified
him as the perpetrator and provided false eye witness
testimony, (doc. 9-4, p. 5; doc. 9-5, p. 5), and Defendant
Officer Davidson failed to provide an affidavit and gave
false information in establishing probable cause, (doc. 9-4,
pp. 1-2; doc. 9-5, pp. 1-2.) Lastly, Plaintiff asserts
Defendants the State of Georgia, Douglas County, Gwinnett
County, Douglas County Superior Court, City of Douglasville,
and City of Tucker, all entities within Georgia, were
involved in the conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his
federal rights by arresting and prosecuting him without
probable cause and due process. (Doc. 9-4, pp. 5-6; Doc. 9-5,
states this alleged conspiracy against him has caused him
“moral wrongs, slander of name and character, ”
has hurt his family, and deprived him of medical care. (Doc.
9, p. 5.) As relief, Plaintiff requests $26, 000, 000.00,
which he claims Defendants have already agreed to pay.
(Id. at pp. 5, 7.)
seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 and 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, or 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. §
reviewing a Complaint on an application to proceed in
forma pauperis, the Court is guided by the instructions
for pleading contained in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. 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.
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 under Heck v. Humphrey and the
Plaintiff could plausibly allege claims absent the immunity
principles, dearth of factual allegations, and statute of
limitations discussed below, most devastating to his Section
1983 action as to all Defendants, is that it fundamentally
concerns the criminal process by which he was adjudicated.
Simply, Plaintiff's complaints about the alleged
conspiracy that transpired to his present incarceration are
barred by Heck v. Humphrey and the
Amended Complaint centers on his arrest, prosecution, and
adjudication by Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that each
Defendant played an unlawful role in a conspiracy to convict
him without probable cause and without due process. (Docs.
9-4, 9-5.) Further, Plaintiff alleges certain unnamed
officials with Defendants the State of Georgia, Douglas
County, Gwinnett County, Douglas County Superior Court, City
of Douglasville, and City of Tucker, also deprived him of
federal rights in this alleged conspiracy against him.
(Id.) However, even assuming the truth of these
“clearly baseless” claims, Plaintiff has not
shown that his conviction has been reversed, expunged,
invalidated, called into question by a federal court's
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, or otherwise overturned.
As such, this Court is precluded from reviewing
Plaintiff's alleged conspiracy claims by the decision in
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
Heck, a state prisoner filed a Section 1983 damages
action against the prosecutors and investigator in his
criminal case for their actions which resulted in his
conviction. The United States Supreme Court analogized the
plaintiff's claim to a common-law cause of action for
malicious prosecution, which requires as an element of the
claim that the prior ...