GRAY v. MARTIN et al
ORDER DISMISSING without prejudice 13 Amended Complaint. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 4/13/2017. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
RICHARD ERIN GRAY, SR.,
CORY W. MARTIN, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-CV-232 (MTT)
On August 26, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff Richard Erin Gray, Sr.’s Motion to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) and ordered the Plaintiff to amend his complaint.
Doc. 10. The Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the Court’s orders could
result in dismissal of his complaint. Doc. 10. The Court later granted the Plaintiff’s
Motion for Extension of Time to Amend his Complaint (Doc. 11). Doc. 12. The Plaintiff
was ordered to file his amended complaint by October 14, 2016. The Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint was not filed until October 25, 2016.1 Rule 41(b) provides that an
involuntary dismissal is permitted “[if] the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with . . .
a court order.” Fed. Rule Civ. P. 41(b). Although the Court must liberally construe pro
se pleadings, pro se litigants must still “conform to procedural rules.” Albra v. Advan,
Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007). Moreover, pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the
Plaintiff was ordered to amend his complaint to provide a factual and legal basis for his
In the caption of his Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff provides the date “Oct. 10th.” Doc. 13 at 1.
However, the Amended Complaint is post-marked October 18 (Doc. 13-1) and was received by the Court
on October 25 (Doc. 13 at 1).
claims or face dismissal. Doc. 10 at 3. Dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to
state a claim is governed by the same standard as a dismissal pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6).2 The Plaintiff provides additional factual matter in his Amended Complaint,
but, even construing the complaint liberally, the Court cannot find the Plaintiff states a
claim for relief. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) is DISMISSED
SO ORDERED, this13th day of April, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
To avoid dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain specific factual matter
to “‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “At the motion to dismiss stage, all well
pleaded facts are accepted as true, and the reasonable inferences therefrom are construed in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff.” Garfield v. NDC Health Corp., 466 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While a complaint does not need detailed factual
allegations to survive a motion to dismiss, the entitlement to relief “requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555.
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?