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. 7).
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. 6, p. 3). 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 9. 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 is a Special needs Child. I was awarded custody of him
@ 11 Yrs old by the head Judge in Essex County, N.J.
(Honorable Judge Troiano) (See attached Profile). My
Son's Mom never got over this and has been through
several Attorneys, married a few times and worked her way up
to the top floor after her Fiance in the same law firm hired
this top attorney for her who she ended up marrying and his
entire matrimonial team quit on him. Our Son had some issues
Nov/Dec 2017 & had to go to a treatment center. During
this period I discovered some very troubling thing [sic] by
his Mom's New Phone frequently dialing me & leaving
messages on vmail when I'd miss the call otherwise
I'd listen out of curiousity [sic] since they were
talking about Our Son and the Situation. I found their
conversation to be disturbing. I also discovered some things
that I wasn't supposed to know and when I confronted my
Son's Mom she was infuriated. Since, they choked off all
financial support and assistance they both agreed to pay and
did timely and cositently [sic] for several years ($5, 900.
Per Month). Payments Stopped Retaliation Began!
(Doc. No. 7, p. 5). This claim, and others like it, in the
Amended Complaint are largely identical to
Plaintiff's claims found in his original Complaint, (Doc.
No. 1), which the Court previously screened and dismissed as
frivolous. (See Doc. No. 6, p. 7).
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. 7, p. 7- 9).
Presumably, these materials are offered to lend credence to
Plaintiff's alleged past experiences as a businessman.
See id at 5 (“I worked very hard for over 20
years and . . . [a] publicly traded company bought us out
$Multi-Million$ buy out!”). 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,
Plaintiff s Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 7), still does not
meet the pleading standards of Rule 8 ...