Muhammad v. Randolph-Obamanu
Order granting in part and denying in part 2 motion to proceed IFP and for appointment of counsel filed by Jibrail Malik Muhammad. The motion IFP is granted. Plaintiff's request for counsel is denied. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and it is ordered that prior to service of process this action is dismissed without prejudice.. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 3/13/2012. (copy mailed) (cmj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JIBRAIL MALIK MUHAMMAD,
CIVIL ACTION 12-153-KD-M
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jibrail Malik Muhammad’s motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel.1 (Doc. 2). Plaintiff’s motion is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Specifically, upon review of the financial
information provided by Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff is indigent and may therefore
proceed in forma pauperis. However, recognizing both that a civil plaintiff has no constitutional
right to counsel and that the Eleventh Circuit has held that courts should appoint counsel only in
“exceptional circumstances, such as where facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to
require the assistance of a trained practitioner,” see Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th
Cir. 1992), Plaintiff’s request for counsel is DENIED.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review Plaintiff’s
complaint and dismiss the case if it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim for which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) (2006); see also
Plaintiff initially filed his pro se “Petition for Remedies” in the Northern District of
Alabama. (Doc. 1). On February 10, 2012, the Honorable C. Lynwood Smith, Jr., United States
District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama transferred the case to the Southern District
of Alabama along with 44 other apparently related actions that Plaintiff contemporaneously
commenced in the Northern District. (Doc. 3). On March 7, 2012, the Clerk of Court assigned
each of Plaintiff’s 45 cases to the undersigned.
Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1348-49 (11th Cir. 2001) (dismissal under § 1915(e) is
mandatory). In order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a complaint must set
forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. (citation omitted).
Because Plaintiff’s complaint nowhere mentions the defendant named in this action, the
Court cannot reasonably infer that she is liable for any of the misconduct Plaintiff alleges.
Accordingly, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and it is
ORDERED that, prior to service of process, this action be DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to Plaintiff by U.S. Mail.
DONE and ORDERED this the 13th day of March 2012.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?