United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
K. EPPS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
commenced the above-captioned case pro se and is
proceeding in forma pauperis
(“IFP”). Because he is proceeding IFP,
Plaintiff's complaint must be screened to protect
potential Defendants. Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d
782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984). Pleadings drafted by pro
se litigants must be liberally construed, Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), but the Court may
dismiss a complaint, or any part thereof, that is frivolous
or malicious or that fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) &
SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT
names as Defendants (1) Georgia Department of Behavioral
Health and Developmental Disabilities; and (2) Serenity
Behavioral Systems. (See doc. no. 1.) Taking all of
Plaintiff's factual allegations as true, as the Court
must for purposes of the present screening, the facts are as
will not provide clinical and rehabilitation services to
Plaintiff in violation of a January 15, 2009 Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) settlement.
(Id. at 4.) Plaintiff requests $864 million in
“proactive” relief. (Id.)
Legal Standard for Screening
complaint or any portion thereof may be dismissed if it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune to such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is frivolous if it
“lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327
(1989). “Failure to state a claim under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard as
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6).” Wilkerson v. H & S, Inc., 366
Fed.Appx. 49, 51 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam)
(citing Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490
(11th Cir. 1997)).
avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, the allegations in the complaint must
“state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). That is,
“[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. While Rule 8(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require detailed
factual allegations, “it demands more than an
unadorned, the defendant unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A
complaint is insufficient if it “offers ‘labels
and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action, '” or if it
“tenders ‘naked assertions' devoid of
‘further factual enhancement.'” Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). In short,
the complaint must provide a “‘plain
statement' possess[ing] enough heft to ‘sho[w] that
the pleader is entitled to relief.'”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P.
the court affords a liberal construction to a pro se
litigant's pleadings, holding them to a more lenient
standard than those drafted by an attorney. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam);
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
curiam). However, this liberal construction does not
mean that the court has a duty to re-write the complaint.
Snow v. DirecTV, Inc., 450 F.3d 1314, 1320 (11th
Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be
complaint fails to satisfy the pleading standard established
by Twombly and Iqbal. The factual basis for
Plaintiff's complaint consists of a single sentence,
which does not attribute the alleged wrongdoing to either
Defendant and vaguely references a settlement executed in
2009. (Doc. no. 1, p. 4.) Plaintiff attached two exhibits to
his complaint: (1) a letter to Plaintiff from the U.S.
Department of Justice Civil Rights Division stating they
would take no further action regarding his complaint of an
ADA violation; and (2) a letter to Plaintiff from the
Augusta, Georgia, office of the Social Security
Administration informing Plaintiff he cannot enter the office
for any reason because, on December 8, 2017, he threatened
personnel he would “have a truck come and take care of
all of you.” (Id at 6-9.) The exhibits do not
provide additional details concerning Plaintiffs claims. In
short, Plaintiffs complaint amounts to nothing more than a
single conclusory allegation and, thus, fails to state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See
Iqbal 556 U.S. at 678.