United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
T. TREADWELL, JUDGE.
Napoleon Gray has moved to proceed in forma
pauperis. Doc. 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a),
a district court must determine whether the statements
contained in a financial affidavit satisfy the requirement of
poverty. Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d
1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2004). “Such affidavit will be
held sufficient if it represents that the litigant, because
of his poverty, is unable to pay for the court fees and
costs, and to support and provide necessities for himself and
his dependents.” Id. The Court is satisfied
that the Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs and fees
associated with this lawsuit. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED.
the Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the
Court is required to dismiss the case if it (1) is frivolous
or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(b). A complaint is frivolous if “it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “A
dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state
a claim is governed by the same standard as a dismissal
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).”Thomas v. Harris, 399 Fed.Appx.
508, 509 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Mitchell v.
Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir.1997)). Because
the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, however, his
“pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be
liberally construed.” Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d
1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks and citation
complaint, the Plaintiff asserts supervisory liability claims
against Defendants Governor Nathan Deal, Former Attorney
General Samuel Olens, and a host of other officials. Doc. 1
at 4-6. The Plaintiff alleges that these officials personally
participated in violating his constitutional rights by
removing many legal documents from his court criminal files,
such as criminal warrants and motions. Id. at 6. In
particular, the Plaintiff alleges that on May 8, 2018, the
“Georgia governor office and the Georgia State Attorney
General Office removed several legal documents out [of his]
criminal files of the Houston County Superior Courthouse upon
[him] coming off state probation.” Id. at 7.
According to the Plaintiff, there is a causal connection
between the alleged actions of the supervising officials and
his constitutional deprivation. Id. The Plaintiff
also claims that the Georgia Department of Corrections
institution “master mine [sic] to commit murder to kill
[him] to cover up the many beat[ings] and punishment and the
black mailing [he has] received” during the years he
was incarcerated and on probation. Id. at 7-8. The
Plaintiff believes the Defendants were aware of these
incidents, and, thus, he is entitled to $150, 000, 000.
Id. at 2, 9.
Court disagrees. First, the Plaintiff's allegations that
supervisory officials removed legal documents from his
criminal files are not new and have already been dismissed by
this Court in another case for failure to establish the
requirements necessary to sustain a supervisory liability
claim. See Gray v. Gov. Nathan Deal, et
al., No. 5:15-cv-91, Docs. 1; 7 (Mar. 17, 2015). While
the Plaintiff is now aware of the relevant law governing
supervisory liability and recites it throughout his
complaint, mere “formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). It is clear the
Plaintiff's allegations are conclusory and, thus,
insufficient to establish supervisory liability. Moreover,
the Plaintiff's allegation that the Georgia Department of
Corrections “[masterminded] to commit murder to kill
[him]” is, as the Eleventh Circuit described similar
claims brought by another plaintiff, “irrational and
wholly incredible.” Gary v. United States
Gov't, 540 Fed.Appx. 916, 918 (11th Cir. 2013);
see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33
(1992) (explaining that “a finding of factual
frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to
the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible”).
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's complaint and amended
complaint are DISMISSED without
 To avoid dismissal pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain specific
factual matter 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)). “At
the motion to dismiss stage, all well-pleaded facts are
accepted as true, and the reasonable inferences therefrom are
construed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” Garfield v. NDC Health Corp., 466
F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). While a complaint does not need detailed
factual allegations to survive a motion to dismiss, the
entitlement to relief “requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555.
 The Plaintiff has recently filed an
amended complaint, wherein he states he is not under the
influence of antidepressants or alcohol, requests law
documents from former United States Attorney General Michael
Moore, and realleges that the Department of Corrections
masterminded to commit murder. Doc. 5 at 2.
 In addition to this lawsuit, the
Plaintiff has filed at least 13 lawsuits addressed by the
 The Plaintiff has also moved to compel
the United States Department of the Treasury to send him
unreceived social security checks. Doc. 4 at 3. Because this
case is dismissed, the Plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc.
4) as well as his request for law ...