BELGRAVE v. CHILL BAR & LOUNGE

Filing 4

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is ordered to amend his complaint by 10/11/13.Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 1:13-cv-151 (wks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
KHARAN BELGRAVE,
Plaintiff
v.
CHILL BAR & LOUNGE,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO.: 1:13-CV-151 (WLS)

ORDER
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Kharan Belgrave’s Motion for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 2.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc.
2) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is ORDERED to amend his Complaint (Doc. 1) in a
written filing that must be received by the Clerk’s Office not later than Friday,
October 11, 2013. Plaintiff is NOTICED that failure to comply with this Order may
result in dismissal of his action.
DISCUSSION
I. In Forma Pauperis Procedure
This Court must follow a well-established two-step procedure in processing a case
filed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Cotton v. Georgia, No. 5:07-cv159 (HL), 2007 WL 1810231, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Jun. 21, 2007). “Initially, the district court
must determine whether the plaintiff is unable to prepay costs and fees and is therefore
a pauper under the statute.” Procup v. Strickland, 760 F.2d 1107, 1114 (11th Cir. 1985).
“Only after making a finding of poverty and docketing the case can the court proceed to
the next question: whether the claim asserted is frivolous or malicious.” Id.

1

II. Plaintiff’s Financial Status
Upon review of pro se Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(Doc. 2), the Court finds that Plaintiff appears to meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §
1915. In his Motion, Plaintiff represented that he has no income and owns no property.
(Id.) Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff appears to meet the requirements of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) for proceeding in forma pauperis and GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion
for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 2.)
III.

Validity of Plaintiff’s Complaint

With Plaintiff’s indigent status confirmed, the Court must conduct a review of his
Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e)(2) requires a court to dismiss
an indigent party’s case at any time if the court determines that the party’s action (i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii)
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. The Court
acknowledges that “a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers and can only be dismissed
for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of
facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Hyland v. Kolhage, 158
F. App’x 194, 196 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)).
However, the Court also recognizes that “even in the case of pro se litigants this leniency
does not give a court license to serve as a de facto counsel for a party, . . . or to rewrite
an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” GJR Invs., 132 F.3d at
1369 (citation omitted). In summary, “[c]ourts show leniency to pro se litigants,
however, pro se litigants are still required to conform to the procedural rules, and the

2

court is not required to rewrite deficient pleadings.” Jacox v. Dep’t of Def., 291 Fed.
App’x 318, 318 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing GJR Invs., 132 F.3d at 1369).
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The complaint alleges two causes of action: gender-based discrimination and assault.
The factual basis for this claim is that “Plaintiff gave the defendant’s female dancer, a
three dollar money tip [sic], and was assaulted by the security officer.” Based on this
allegation, Plaintiff claims he is entitled to $450,000 in damages. (Id.) The complaint
does not provide any other information or facts, and Plaintiff does not cite to any
statutes or constitutional provisions that would shed light on the jurisdictional basis for
his claims.
The Court finds that dismissal without prejudice would be appropriate under
Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii), for failure to state a claim. The Court will not dismiss the
Complaint, however, because “[w]here it appears that a more carefully drafted
complaint might state a claim, the district court should give a pro se plaintiff an
opportunity to amend [his] complaint instead of dismissing it.” Schmitt v. U.S. Office of
Pers. Mgmt., 403 F. App’x 460, 462 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Bank v. Pitt, 928 F.2d 1108,
1112 (11th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to amend his Complaint (Doc. 1) in a written
filing that must be received by the Clerk’s Office not later than Friday, October 11,
2013. Plaintiff must include sufficient factual allegations to establish the claims in his
amended complaint and state the constitutional and/or statutory basis for those claims
and this Court’s jurisdiction. If Plaintiff has not done so already, the Court recommends
that he review the “Pro Se Litigant Guide” available from the Clerk’s Office prior to filing

3

his Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is NOTICED that failure to comply with this Order
may result in dismissal of his action without further notice or proceedings.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’ Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is ORDERED to amend his Complaint
(Doc. 1) in a written filing that must be received by the Clerk’s Office not later than
Friday, October 11, 2013. Plaintiff is NOTICED that failure to comply with this
Order may result in dismissal of his action without further notice or proceedings.
SO ORDERED, this 27th

day of September 2013.

/s/ W. Louis Sands
THE HONORABLE W. LOUIS SANDS,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4