United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
C. MULLEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on initial review of the
Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 6). Plaintiff is proceeding
in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 4).
se Plaintiff purports to file suit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff, whose address of record is in
Charlotte, names as Defendants the private law firm of
Crumley Roberts, LLP, and the firm's president,
Christopher H. Roberts, of Greensboro, N.C. Plaintiff states
that Defendants were acting under color of state law at the
time the claims occurred. (Doc. No. 6 at 2).
Complaint's “Nature of Case” section states
that Plaintiff's constitutional rights have been
disparaged and that he needs an attorney to pursue justice in
light of the race and disability discrimination he has
experienced at the hands of “the federal government and
[his] mother, which is official through the eyes of the
‘Judiciary' as of June 6, 2015.” (Doc. No. 6
at 3). He claims that he is disabled due to
“arrested developmental” and that
Crumley Roberts is a personal injury/disability law firm that
advertises “[w]e stand up for you.” (Doc. No. 6
at 3). On February 28, 2019, Plaintiff sent the law firm an
email explaining his injury and the discrimination he has
experienced. An unknown individual phoned him on March 6,
2019 and was “frivolous and malicious” to
Plaintiff and “tried to put [Plaintiff] on a wild
chase.” (Doc. No. 6 at 3). Plaintiff was never
appointed a lawyer or received a consultation to “start
the process of remedying or terminating, [Plaintiff] being a
victim, of race and disability discrimination, at the hands
of the federal government and [his] mother.” (Doc. No.
6 at 3). He claims that the law firm discriminated against
him because he is African-American and disabled and failed to
“appoint” a lawyer to represent him and thus
“compelled [him] to have to deal with the ordeal,
torture, of being a, victim of, race and disability
discrimination, at the hands of the federal government and
[his] mother, by discriminating against [him] or [his] case
of, being a victim of race and disability discrimination, at
the hands of the federal government and [his] mother, because
of [his] race, being an African-American and [his]
disability, being a person subject to arrested
developmental.” (Doc. No. 6 at 5). Plaintiff
claims that Defendants subjected him to “advertisement
injury” by choosing not to represent him which is
“torture.” (Doc. No. 6 at 4).
relief, Plaintiff seeks an apartment and utilities, money for
food and clothing, and attorneys to “start the process,
of terminating or remedying me being a victim, of race and
disability discrimination, at the hands of the federal
government and [his] mother, from law firm, Crumley Roberts,
LLP [and] … that [his] relief requests, are not
disparaging.” (Doc. No. 6 at 13).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court
must review the Amended 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 Amended 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
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)). However,
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).
conclusory, repetitious, and nonsensical allegations fail to
adequately describe how each of the Defendants - a law firm
and private attorney - was a state actor or violated
Plaintiff's rights under the color of state law. To the
extent that Plaintiff alludes to a disability and
discrimination, these references likewise too vague and
conclusory to state a claim and are frivolous. See
generally Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)
(“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate
when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or
the wholly incredible....”); McLean v. United
States, 566 F.3d 391, 399 (4th Cir. 2009)
(“Examples of frivolous claims include those whose
factual allegations are ‘so nutty,'
‘delusional,' or ‘wholly fanciful' as to
be simply ‘unbelievable.'”). Indeed, the
allegations are so severely deficient that the Court cannot
conclude that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over this
action. For all the foregoing reasons, the Amended Complaint
will be dismissed.
is cautioned that repeated frivolous filings before the Court
may result in the imposition of sanctions including a