United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
E. SELF, III, JUDGE.
case is currently before the Court for preliminary screening
as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff
Octavious Williams, a prisoner in Ware State Prison, filed a
civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
[Doc. 1]. Along with his complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. 2].
After due consideration, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court finds, however, that Plaintiff's complaint
fails to state a claim for relief. Therefore, the Court
DISMISSES the Complaint without
prejudice pursuant to § 1915A(b).
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
court of the United States may authorize a plaintiff to
commence a civil action without prepayment of the required
filing fee (in forma pauperis) if the plaintiff
shows that he is indigent and financially unable to pay the
court's fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). A
prisoner wishing to proceed under § 1915 must provide
the district court with both (1) an affidavit in support of
his claim of indigence, and (2) a certified copy of his
prison “trust fund account statement (or institutional
equivalent) for the 6-month period immediately preceding the
filing of the complaint.” § 1915(a)(1)-(2).
to this provision, Plaintiff has moved for leave to proceed
without prepayment of the $350.00 filing fee, and his
submissions show that he is currently unable to prepay any
portion of the filing fee. The Court therefore
GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed
in forma pauperis [Doc. 2]. Plaintiff, however, must
still eventually pay the full balance of the filing fee, in
installments, as set forth in § 1915(b) and explained
below. The district court's filing fee is not refundable,
regardless of the outcome of the case, and Plaintiff must
therefore pay the fee in full, even if the Court dismisses
Plaintiff's complaint prior to service.
this reason, the Court DIRECTS the
CLERK to forward a copy of this Order to the
business manager of the facility where Plaintiff is
incarcerated so that withdrawals from his account may
commence as payment towards the filing fee.
Directions to Plaintiff's Custodian
the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis in the above-captioned case, the Court also
hereby ORDERS the warden of the institution
wherein Plaintiff is incarcerated, or the Sheriff of any
county wherein he is held in custody, and any successor
custodians, to each month cause to be remitted to the
CLERK of this Court twenty percent (20%) of
the preceding month's income credited to Plaintiff's
trust account at said institution until Plaintiff has paid
the $350.00 filing fee in full. The prison account custodian
shall collect and withhold the funds on a monthly basis, and
shall forward the amount collected as payment towards the
filing fee, provided the amount in Plaintiff's account
exceeds $10.00. The custodian shall continue to collect and
remit payments until the Clerk receives the entire fee, even
if the Court dismisses Plaintiff's lawsuit or grants
judgment against Plaintiff before Plaintiff has paid the full
Plaintiff's Obligations Upon Release
individual's release from prison does not excuse his
prior noncompliance with the provisions of the PLRA. Thus, in
the event that the State of Georgia or any county therein
releases Plaintiff from custody, Plaintiff shall remain
obligated to pay those installments that the income to his
prisoner trust account justified while he was still
incarcerated. The Court hereby authorizes collection from
Plaintiff of any balance due on these payments by any means
permitted by law if Plaintiff is released from custody and
fails to remit such payments. The Court may dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint if he has the ability to make such
payments and fails to do so or if he otherwise fails to
comply with the provisions of the PLRA.
Authority & Standard for Preliminary
Court must now conduct a preliminary review of
Plaintiff's complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a) (requiring the screening of prisoner cases) & 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e) (regarding in forma pauperis
proceedings). When performing this review, the district court
must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true.
Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1347 (11th Cir.
2004). The Court holds pro se pleadings “to a
less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys,
” and thus, the Court “liberally
construe[s]” pro se claims. Tannenbaum v.
United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
Still, the Court must dismiss a prisoner complaint if it
“(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b).
is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in
law or in fact.” Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d
1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The Court may dismiss claims that are based on
“indisputably meritless legal” theories and
“claims whose factual contentions are clearly
baseless.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not
include “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)). The factual allegations in a complaint
“must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level” and cannot “merely create a
suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (first alteration in
original). In other words, the complaint must allege
enough facts “to raise a reasonable expectation that
discovery will reveal evidence” supporting a claim.
Id. at 556. “Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
state a claim for relief under §1983, a plaintiff must
allege that (1) an act or omission deprived him of a right,
privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or a
statute of the United States; and (2) the act or omission was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.
Hale v. Tallapoosa Cty., 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th
Cir. 1995). If a litigant cannot satisfy these requirements
or fails to provide factual allegations in support of ...