OWENS v. KINGS et al

Filing 10

ORDER DENYING 8 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 10/9/2013. (tlh)

INTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
JOHNNY OWENS,
Plaintiff,
v.
INVESTIGATOR COREY KINGS and
JUDGE JOHN DANDA,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-275(MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a district court must determine whether the statements
contained in the Plaintiff’s motion and accompanying affidavit satisfy the requirement of
poverty. Martinez v. Kristi Cleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2004). “Such
affidavit will be held sufficient if it represents that the litigant, because of his poverty, is
unable to pay for the court fees and costs, and to support and provide necessities for
himself and his dependents.” Id. at 1307. Here, the Plaintiff reports income of $735 per
month. Although he does not report any significant expenses, the Court is satisfied
based on his monthly income that he is unable to pay the costs and fees associated
with this lawsuit. Accordingly, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
Because the Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to
dismiss the case if it (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b). A complaint is frivolous if “it lacks an

arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Because the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his “pleadings are held to a less stringent
standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.”
Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). However,
even a pro se plaintiff is not excused from compliance with the threshold requirements
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Trawinski v. United Technologies, 313 F.3d
1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002).
Here, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant King wrongfully obtained, and that
Defendant Danda wrongfully issued, a “malice warrant” for his arrest. After the warrant
was issued, the Plaintiff was arrested during a traffic stop in Dekalb County. The
Plaintiff alleges he then spent two days in the Dekalb County jail and 30 days in the
Washington County jail. He seeks damages of $1 million for the Defendants’ purported
violation of his civil rights. However, the Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to suggest
the arrest warrant was wrongfully issued. He simply concludes this, apparently because
he has not been able to determine who accused him of committing the crimes for which
he was arrested.1 The Court finds the Plaintiff’s conclusion unsupported by law or fact.
He offers nothing to indicate King lacked probable cause to obtain the warrant. Indeed,
the Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Consequently, this case is dismissed without prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of September, 2013.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1

It is unclear the exact charges for which the Plaintiff was arrested, but based on the Complaint
they appear to be related to forgery and identity theft.
-2-