HARGROVE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING CASE as Frivolous and Granting Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the business manager of the Hancock State Prison. Ordered by Judge C. Ashley Royal on 9/28/11. (lap)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
:
:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
vs.
:
:
STATE OF GEORGIA, et al.,
:
:
:
Defendants
:
____________________________________
DANIEL HARGROVE,

NO. 5:11-CV-349 (CAR)
ORDER

Plaintiff DANIEL HARGROVE, a prisoner at Hancock State Prison (AHSP@), has
filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff also seeks leave to
proceed without prepayment of the $350.00 filing fee (Doc. 6). Based on Plaintiff=s
submissions, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to prepay the filing fee. Accordingly,
the Court GRANTS Plaintiff=s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and waives the initial
partial filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(b)(1).
Plaintiff is nevertheless obligated to pay the full filing fee, using the installment
payment plan described in 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(b). The prison account custodian shall
cause to be remitted to the Clerk of this Court monthly payments of 20% of the preceding
month=s income credited to Plaintiff=s account (to the extent the account balance exceeds
$10) until the $350 filing fee has been paid in full. The Clerk of Court is directed to send
a copy of this order to the business manager of the HSP.
1

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(a), a federal court is required to conduct an initial
screening of a prisoner complaint Awhich seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity.@ Section 1915A(b) requires a federal court
to dismiss a prisoner complaint that is: (1) Afrivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted@; or (2) Aseeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.@
A claim is frivolous when it appears from the face of the complaint that the factual
allegations are Aclearly baseless@ or that the legal theories are Aindisputably meritless.@
Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). A complaint fails to state a claim
when it does not include Aenough factual matter (taken as true)@ to Agive the defendant fair
notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests[.]@ Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007) (noting that A[f]actual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,@ and that the complaint Amust
contain something more . . . than Y a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion
[of] a legally cognizable right of action@) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see
also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (explaining that Athreadbare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice@).

In making the above determinations, all factual allegations in the complaint

2

must be viewed as true. Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1347 (11th Cir. 2004).
Moreover, A[p]ro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted
by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.@ Tannenbaum v. United States,
148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).

In order to state a claim for relief under section

1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) an act or omission deprived him of a right, privilege,
or immunity secured by the Constitution or a statute of the United States; and (2) the act
or omission was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Hale v.

Tallapoosa County, 50 F.3d 1579, 1581 (11th Cir. 1995). If a litigant cannot satisfy these
requirements, or fails to provide factual allegations in support of his claim or claims, then
the complaint is subject to dismissal. See Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279, 1282-84
(11th Cir. 2003) (affirming the district court=s dismissal of a section 1983 complaint
because the plaintiffs factual allegations were insufficient to support the alleged
constitutional violation). See also 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b) (dictating that a complaint, or any
portion thereof, that does not pass the standard in section 1915A Ashall@ be dismissed on
preliminary review).
II. DISCUSSION
On September 14, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file his complaint on the
Court=s section 1983 form and to name valid Defendants and state in detail how each
Defendant violated Plaintiff=s constitutional rights (Doc. 8). Plaintiff has submitted his
claims on this Court=s standard section 1983 complaint form and named the following
3

Defendants: State of Georgia, Secretary of State of Georgia, Secretary of Treasury of
Georgia, Governor of Georgia, District Attorney of Georgia and Fulton County,
Commissioner for the Georgia Department of Corrections, and State of Ohio.
The bulk of Plaintiff=s complaint is nonsensical. The following is representative of
Plaintiff=s allegations:

Because of the U.S. Bankruptcy, Emergency Banking Relief Act,
Mar. 9, 1933, Sect. 4, Public Law 89-719, I am now recognizing and
taking action to redeem the debtor, Daniel Hargrove ens legis, and
all property pledged to take control, to file notice and to lien all the
property and to restore true rights titles and interests and to sever the
commercial bondage and acquire the standing and capacity to
discharge all fines, fees, taxes, debts, and judgments, of the debtor
due to the U.S. bankruptcy. When I was the owner of property,
registered it with the U.S. or one of its subdivisions, State of
Georgia/Ohio, I had possession but the U.S. and the State[s] of
Georgia and Ohio held, and now illegally holds and invested the title
of the title and made a profit. Because I did not authorize the U.S.,
State of Georgia, State of Ohio, nor its agents, to invest the legal title,
the profits from the title, the all CAPITOL lettered named corporation,
and investment belongs to me.
As relief, Plaintiff asks this Court to allow Plaintiff to Ause the U.S.=s/State of
Georgia=s/State of Ohio=s insurance policy, HOR-192/UCC1-104/UCC-10-104, and if not
sue for $400,000,000. Four Hundred Million dollars or Control the Debtor/Title/Fiction.@
Plaintiff=s allegations, on their face, are Afanciful,@ Afantastic,@ and Adelusional,@ and
therefore factually frivolous. The Supreme Court has explained that Aa finding of factual
frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the

4

wholly incredible.@ Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). In the midst of his
nonsensical allegations, Plaintiff summarily objects to the State of Georgia collecting
$1.00 per month, presumably in administrative fees, $4.00 for each disciplinary report,
and $5.00 for each medical visit.

The Court finds such fees reasonable and not

unconstitutional. See e.g., City of Revere v. Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S.
239, 245 n.7 (1983) (_Nothing we say here affects any right a hospital or government
entity may have to recover from a detainee the cost of medical services provided to
him._); Frady v. Donald, 5:06-cv-218 (CAR) (M.D. Ga. July 10, 2006).
When a more properly pleaded complaint may withstand the frivolity review, this
Court typically allows a pro se plaintiff to submit a recast complaint. Even construed
liberally and assuming it were more artfully drafted, however, Plaintiff=s complaint does
not set forth any valid claim against the Defendants.1
Lastly, with the exception of damages to which Plaintiff is not entitled, the Court
notes that Plaintiff seeks relief that this Court cannot provide.

1

Because Plaintiff references a Afraudulent indictment,@ it is possible he wishes to challenge his
conviction or sentence arising in Fulton County. If so, he must file a petition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. ' 2254. Plaintiff has previously had a habeas petition denied as
time-barred. See Hargrove v. Smith, 1:05-cv-815-WBH (N.D. Ga. 2005). Plaintiff may not
bring a successive petition without first seeking permission from the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals as required by 28 U.S.C. '' 2244(b)(3)(A), 2254of. If the Eleventh Circuit were to grant
Plaintiff permission to file a successive habeas petition, said petition should be filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, where Fulton County, Georgia is located.
See 28 U.S.C. ' 90(a)(2).

5

III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED as frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A.

SO ORDERED, this 28th day of September, 2011.

S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cr

6