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's Mom had got a new phone after my Son had to go
to a treatment facility for some issues he was having. During
this period her new phone kept calling me and I mean
frequently! I ended up listening when I could and vmail
picked up a lot! I ended up discovering some disturbing
details regarding my Son getting Sick Drunk at his Mom's
Wedding and ended up getting visciously [sic] attacked by a
family member who my Son's Mom is very protective over! I
also discovered some salacious details about her personal
life & did a few hints when she was acting mean about are
[sic] Son. This infuriated her because the details were
aboiut [sic] her Paramour she's been seeing on the side
for a long time. He is also very dear to her. She feels her
relationships now are both at stake. [S]he stands to lose not
only her dear friend she's fond of & known for a long
time, she also stands to lose her Millionaire Extraordinary
Lifestyle! This is what caused her anger and Vindictive Hate
Campagne [sic] toward me! She choked off all the financial
assistance she's been giving us consistently for over 3
years & started trying to Sabotage me!
(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).
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
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ashcroft ...