United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
D. WHITNEY, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court sua sponte following
Plaintiff's filing of an Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 8).
For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby DISMISSES
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in its entirety.
filed his original Complaint, (Doc. No. 1), on April 3, 2019,
and made a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On
April 25, 2019, this Court granted Plaintiff's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, and conducted a frivolity
review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
(Doc. No. 7). After noting that Plaintiff's Complaint was
“severely deficient” for numerous reasons, the
Court dismissed the Complaint as frivolous and ordered
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that addressed the
deficiencies noted by the Court. Id. at 10. The
Court further warned Plaintiff that if he failed to correct
the problems with his action, then the action “will be
dismissed and closed without further notice to
Plaintiff 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; fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). The 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). If the Court
determines at any time that Plaintiff's action is
frivolous or fails to state a claim, then the Court must
dismiss the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). The statement of the
claim does not require specific facts; instead, it
“need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of
what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.'” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The
statement must assert more than “labels and
conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555.
pro se complaint must be construed liberally.
See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972);
see also Smith v. Smith, 589 F.3d 736, 738 (4th Cir.
2009) (“Liberal construction of the pleadings is
particularly appropriate where . . . there is a pro
se complaint raising civil rights issues.”).
However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit
a district court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in
the complaint which set forth a claim that is cognizable
under federal law. Weller v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990). Furthermore, the
Fourth Circuit has previously held that when reviewing
pro se complaints, courts are permitted to
“apply common sense” and “reject the
fantastic.” Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of
Corrections, 64 F.3d 951, 954 (4th Cir. 1995).
Amended Complaint is almost identical to his original
Complaint and as such, is still largely nonsensical. For
example, as the factual basis for his claim, Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint alleges, verbatim:
My Son's Mom Engaged me in many Years of Litigation
regarding custody of our Son! Without Going into any of the
Salacious Details in Summary, she dated several Lawers along
the way, two of which Worked at the Same Matrimonial Law Firm
in NJ. The 1st Atty on the 3rd floor finally god the Main
Atty on the top floor to take her case, they stretched it out
for years, ended up getting married. She has engaged into
powerplay dirty tricks & tactics by weaponizing this
Lawfirm and unlimited resources financially against me. She
initially called this Apartment Manager (Connie Axiotis)
allured her into the conversation, information manipulation
starter. She talked the Mgr into Sabatoging Visa Cards my
Son's Mom was using to pay us for Child
Assistance/Support, Etc. These were Visa Cash Cards (See Ex.
Attached). This happened Jan-2018 and it was baffling,
confusing and caused serious issues with Evictions, Etc. They
kept trying these Trick Eviction (Technicality) Tactics for
several months. Many Court hearings. On July 2nd, in the
final hearing, we prevailed (See Attached)! Retaliation
(Doc. No. 8, p. 5). This claim, and others like it, in the
Amended Complaint are largely identical to
Plaintiff's claims found in the “Addendum to
Complaint, ” (Doc. No. 3), which the Court previously
screened and dismissed as frivolous. (See Doc. No.
7, p. 2).
only material difference between Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint and the previous frivolous filings is that
Plaintiff now attaches three exhibits to his Amended
Complaint: 1) a “reference article” that appears
to be about Plaintiff's previous business ventures, 2) an
indecipherable photograph with the word “magic”
written under it, and 3) a business card which advertises
“luxury real estate rentals” with Plaintiff's
email address on it. (See Doc. No. 8, p. 7- 9).
Presumably, these materials are offered to lend credence to
Plaintiff's alleged prior success as a businessman.
See id at 4 (“I was a self made Millionaire
(Well Documented) . . . .”). However, these materials
do nothing to address the Complaint's numerous
deficiencies, which the Court has already addressed in its
earlier order dismissing the case. The Court finds that, as a
whole, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 8), still does
not meet the pleading standards of Rule 8 of the ...