United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division
ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24, 2019, Chief Judge J. Randal Hall ordered that Case Number
6:18-cv-93 and Case Number 6:18-cv-133 be consolidated into
Case Number 6:18-cv-92. Doc. 47. Eleven motions, six
originally filed in Case Number 6:18-cv-92 and five
originally filed in Case Number 6:18-cv-93, are currently
before the Court. Docs. 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 30, 31, 32,
34, 35. For the following reasons, I GRANT
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, doc. 34, and Motions to
Supplement, docs. 18, 20. I DENY
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, doc. 17, Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel, doc. 31, and Motion for Leave of the Court
to Start the Discovery Process, doc. 35. I
RECOMMEND the Court DENY without
prejudice Defendant Toombs County Sherriff's
Office's Motions to Dismiss, docs. 13, 32, and
DENY as premature Plaintiff's Motion for
Default Judgment, doc. 10, Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, doc. 12, and Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 30.
the Court DEFERS frivolity review and
ORDERS Plaintiff to file an Amended
Complaint within 14 days of the date of this
Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint as
ordered, the Court may dismiss this case for failure to
prosecute and failure to follow the Court's Order.
case consists of three different Complaints (all brought by
Plaintiff and all alleging substantially identical facts)
which the Honorable J. Randal Hall recently consolidated into
one action. See Doc. 47. All three cases now
consolidated into this action arise from Plaintiff's
arrest for failure to register as a sex offender under
O.C.G.A. § 42-1-17. Docs. 1, 22, 41. In essence,
Plaintiff alleges that he did, in fact, comply with the
requirements of the sex offender registry and that the Toombs
County Sheriff's Office (and employees Banks and Bivins)
violated his constitutional rights by making false statements
in his arrest warrant. Docs. 1, 22, 41. Plaintiff's claim
is now pending against three Defendants-Defendant Toombs
County Sherriff's Office, Defendant Ron Bivins, and
Defendant Robyn Banks. Doc. 47.
July 24, 2019 consolidation Order, Chief Judge Hall directed
the Clerk of Court to close Case Number 6:18-cv-93 and Case
Number 6:18-cv-133 and to file all pleadings in both Case
Number 6:18-cv-93 and Case Number 6:18-cv-133 on the docket
of Case Number 6:18-cv-92. Id. Plaintiff brought all
cases now consolidated in this action while incarcerated.
Plaintiff also filed motions requesting to proceed in
forma pauperis in all three cases. Doc. 5; Docs. 23, 36;
Doc. 43. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion in Case No.
6:18-cv-93. Doc. 36. In the consolidation Order, Judge Hall
denied as moot Plaintiff's remaining motions to proceed
in forma pauperis and stated that Plaintiff
“shall continue to proceed in forma pauperis
in this consolidated action.” Doc. 47.
Court finds it helpful to set out the status of the current
docket in Case Number 6:18-cv-92. The first 21 filings, docs.
1-21, are all original pleadings from Case Number 6:18-cv-92.
Document 22 to Document 40 are the pleadings originally
submitted in Case Number 6:18-cv-93. Docs. 22-40. Finally,
the pleadings initially submitted in Case Number 6:18-cv-133
are docketed as Documents 41 through 46. Docs. 41-46.
Plaintiff's Three Actions
Case Number 6:18-cv-92
originally filed what is now Case Number 6:18-cv-92 on July
20, 2018 in the Middle District of Georgia. Doc. 1 at 1. On
September 7, 2018, the Middle District determined venue was
proper in this District and transferred the action
accordingly. Docs. 7, 8, 9. In his original Complaint
(consisting of two pages and eight pages of attachments),
Plaintiff alleges that one Defendant-the Toombs County
Sherriff's Office-violated the “oath of
office” and infringed upon Plaintiff's Fifth,
Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Doc. 1 at 1.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff refers to Warrant Number
07-17-17-15 S and Warrant Number 07-06-17-2R. Id.
Warrant Number 07-17-17-15 S and Warrant Number 07-06-17-2R
seem to refer to case numbers for unindicted criminal charges
pending against Plaintiff in Toombs County Superior Court.
See Doc. 1-3 at 1.
Case Number 6:18-cv-93
August 15, 2018, Plaintiff initiated Case Number 6:18-cv-93
by filing a one-page Complaint which named the Toombs County
Sheriff's Office and Lieutenant Robyn Banks as
Defendants. Doc. 22. In that Complaint, Plaintiff writes that
he is “raising a civil rights violation” against
the Toombs County Sheriff's Office and Lieutenant Robyn
Banks. Id. He claims that Defendant Banks
“violat[ed] her oath of office by racially profiling
[him], ” committing a hate crime against him.
Id. Additionally, he writes that Defendant Banks
“should have known [he] followed the proper guidelines
and [procedures]” when he “signed the sex
offender registry” on March 22, 2016. Id.
Case Number 6:18-cv-113
filed his Complaint in Case Number 6:18-cv-113 on December
21, 2018 against Defendants Ron Bivins and Robyn Banks. Doc.
41. His Complaint consists of 27 pages, with 22 pages of
attachments. Doc. 41. He claims that he brought his action
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, which are the
criminal equivalent of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at
1. He also writes that he is “being denied or cannot
enforce his equal rights under any statute or laws . . .
providing . . . equal rights or equal protection” due
to alleged racial discrimination by “all white
officials” who “played a role” in
Plaintiff's arrest. Id. at 5.
alleged Defendant Bivins, a deputy, falsely arrested him on
December 29, 2016. Doc. 41 at 3. Plaintiff claims his arrest
occurred because Defendant Bivins “swore under
oath” that Plaintiff failed to register as a sex
offender as required under O.C.G.A. § 42-1-17.
Id. Plaintiff also claims Defendant Banks, a
lieutenant, knew he signed the sex offender registry form
because the form contained both Plaintiff and Defendant
Banks's signatures. Id. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Banks “made false statements” in an
affidavit for Plaintiff's arrest and ignored a court
order which required Plaintiff live at 211 Everett Street in
Vidalia, Georgia. Id.
The Motions Currently Before the Court
time of the consolidation, several motions were pending in
Case Number 6:18-cv-92 and Case Number 6:18-cv-93 and remain
pending post-consolidation. Six outstanding motions remain
from the original Case Number 6:18-cv-92, five filed by
Plaintiff, docs. 10, 12, 17, 18, 20, and one Motion to
Dismiss filed by Defendant Toombs County Sheriff's Office
who specially appeared, doc. 13. The pleadings submitted by
Plaintiff are: (1) a Motion for Default Judgment, doc. 10;
(2) a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, doc. 12; (3) a
Motion to Amend, doc. 17; and (4) two Motions to Supplement,
docs. 18, 20.
five motions originally filed in Case Number 6:18-cv-93 are
pending before the Court. Defendant Toombs County
Sheriff's Office filed a Motion to Dismiss by Special
Appearance. Doc. 32. Plaintiff filed: (1) a Motion for
Summary Judgment, doc. 30; (2) a Motion to Compel, doc. 31;
(3) a Motion to Amend, doc. 34; and (4) a Motion for Leave of
Court to Start Discovery, doc. 35. In this Order, the Court
addresses all motions that have been filed in the three
actions and that remain pending.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis. When evaluating this action, the Court is
mindful of 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.