Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hope v. Tin, Fulton, Walker and Owen

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

May 26, 2017

GIRAUD HOPE, Plaintiff,
v.
TIN, FULTON, WALKER AND OWEN, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Frank D. Whitney, Chief United States District Judge

         THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff Giraud Hope's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) and on initial review of Plaintiff's Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         I. BACKGROUND

         On February 9, 2011, Hope pled guilty in federal district court, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to commit health-care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. Plea, Doc. No. 8.[1] Although the advisory sentencing guidelines provided for a range of imprisonment between 37 and 46 months, the Court departed downward and sentenced Hope to 15 months in prison followed by a term of supervised release. Judgment, Doc. No. 15. Judgment was entered on November 3, 2011. Hope did not enter a direct appeal.

         After successfully completing the term of imprisonment, Hope began serving the supervised release portion of his sentence but was brought before the Court on a violation of the terms of supervised release. On October 14, 2014, the Court entered a Judgment for Revocation of Supervised Release, imposing a sentence of nine months in prison, followed by 24 months of supervised release. SRV Judgment, Doc. No. 28. Hope did not appeal the Judgment.

         On September 2, 2015, Hope filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging his 2011 Judgment for conspiracy to commit health-care fraud. Motion to Vacate, Hope v. United States, 3:15-cv-408-MOC ( N.C. W.D.), Doc. No. 1. On January 5, 2016, the Court entered an Order dismissing the Motion to Vacate as untimely. Order Dismiss'g Mot. to Vacate, id. at Doc. No. 12. On May 23, 2016, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an unpublished opinion dismissing Hope's appeal of this Court's Order. United States v. Hope, 639 F. App'x 961 (4th Cir.) (Mem), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 408 (2016) (Mem).

         On January 12, 2017, Hope filed a second Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under § 2255. Mot. to Vacate, Hope v. United States, 3:17-cv-00014-MOC ( N.C. W.D.), Doc. No. 1. He again challenged only his 2011 Judgment for conspiracy to commit health-care fraud. Id. On January 18, 2017, the Court dismissed the Motion to Vacate without prejudice as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 motion. Order Dismiss'g Mot. to Vacate, id. at Doc. No. 2.

         Hope was released from the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons on February 17, 2015. Order Modify'g Conditions of Supervised Release, Doc. No. 40. His term of supervised release expired on February 17, 2017. Id.

         On April 14, 2017, Hope filed the instant action purporting to raise claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl. 1, Doc. No. 1.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff challenges the legality of his federal prosecution contending that through Defendants' ineffectiveness his federal constitutional rights were violated, and he raises a claim for monetary damages and other forms of relief.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Federal law requires that a party instituting a civil action in federal district court pay a filing fee or be granted leave to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a)(1). To establish an inability to pay, the plaintiff must submit an affidavit that includes a statement that the person is unable to pay such fees.

         Hope did not use a standard “Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs” form, and his Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is almost impossible to follow. (Doc. No. 2.) Nevertheless, the Court will grant the Motion because the debt Hope currently owes for taxes, student loans, and Court-ordered restitution totals over $2 million dollars. (Doc. No. 2.)

         Because Hope is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review the Complaint to determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.