United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division
ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
who is currently housed at Smith State Prison in Glennville,
Georgia, filed a cause of action, as supplemented, under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 in the Northern District of Georgia,
contesting conditions of his confinement at Georgia State
Prison in Reidsville, Georgia. Docs. 1, 4. Since his initial
Complaint, Plaintiff has made multiple other filings,
including the submission of multiple exhibits, docs. 12, 14,
two declarations, docs. 13, 17, a motion to produce names,
doc. 15, two motions to amend his Complaint, docs. 22, 24,
and a supplement to his Complaint, doc. 23. I
GRANT Plaintiff's Motions to Amend,
docs. 22, 24, and have considered Plaintiff's amendments
and all exhibits offered in support of Plaintiff's
Complaint while conducting the requisite frivolity review of
Plaintiff's Complaint, as amended. For the reasons which
follow, I RECOMMEND the Court
DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff's
Complaint, DIRECT the Clerk of Court to
CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate
judgment of dismissal, and DENY Plaintiff
leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal. I DENY as moot
Plaintiff's Motion to Produce Names, doc. 15.
Complaint, Plaintiff asserts multiple claims against multiple
Defendants to challenge the conditions of his confinement.
Doc. 1. Through his amended and supplemental Complaints,
Plaintiff seeks to add factual allegations and to name
additional individuals as Defendants in this cause of action.
Docs. 22, 23, 24.
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, malicious, or if
it 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, 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. §
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 §
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 Fed.Appx. 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 . . .
.” (emphasis omitted) (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 Abuse of Judicial Process
Complaint form directly asks Plaintiff whether he has
“brought any lawsuits in federal court”
“[w]hile incarcerated or detained in any
facility” prior to his current filing. Doc. 1 at 2.
This form directs a litigant to “describe [any]
additional lawsuits on another piece of paper, ” if he
has filed “more than one lawsuit[.]” Id.
Plaintiff disclosed two cases: Amerson v. Allen, No.
6:17-cv-156, 2018 WL 3543074, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 26, 2017);
and Amerson v. Hall, No. 5:07-cv-148, 2008 WL
594111, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 4, 2008). Doc. 1 at 2.
Though Plaintiff has filed two motions to amend, docs. 22,
24, these motions do not disclose any additional federal case
filings or contain any information supplementing his initial
statement regarding his previous filings.
search of Plaintiff's litigation history, however,
reveals that he has filed at least two other causes of action
prior to executing his Complaint on June 8, 2018: (1)
Amerson v. Sellers, No. 5:15-CV-8, 2015 WL 631994,
at *3 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 13, 2015); and (2) Amerson v.
Unknown, 1:14-cv-03506 (N.D.Ga. 2014).
previously stated, § 1915 requires a court to dismiss a
prisoner's action if, at any time, the court determines
that it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or
seeks relief from an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Significantly, “[a] finding that the
plaintiff engaged in bad faith litigiousness or manipulative
tactics warrants dismissal” under § 1915.
Redmon v. Lake Cty. Sheriff's Office, 414
Fed.Appx. 221, 225 (11th Cir. 2011) (alteration in original)
(quoting Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 613
(11th Cir. 1997)). In addition, Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11(c) permits a court to impose sanctions,
including dismissal, for “knowingly fil[ing] a pleading
that contains false contentions.” Id. at