GRAY v. GEORGIA STATE OF et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING without prejudice 1 Plaintiff's complaint. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 12/07/2018. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
NAPOLEON GRAY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF GEORGIA, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-406 (MTT)

ORDER
As discussed below, the Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without
prejudice pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act as frivolous and for failure to
state a claim for which relief can be granted.
I. DISCUSSION
The Plaintiff’s handwritten complaint is difficult to read, and what content is
legible is difficult to understand. See, e.g., Doc. 1 at 3 (“I ask them do they think that
the Magistrate Judge would be upset if I told him that he looked like that wresting
Steave Austin and they laughed and sayd that that would probbly be a comment well he
did that Judge laughed and said to me Mr Gray you are charge with a charge but that
do not meant that I was guilty of it and he said that he would type up my bond his self
and let me sign it and let me go see Bill Massey the sheriff in Baldwin County and they
all went to laughing those guys are some of the nices officers in the world just like those
United States Marshals in the United State Federal Courthouse in Macon Ga also
everyone that work their but anyway Baldwin County Sheriff Office pick me up on 7-26-

2016 . . . .” (errors in original)). But the Plaintiff appears to, at least in part, contest his
prison conditions. See Doc. 1 at 11 (“On 08-31-2016 on second shift . . . S[ergeant]
John Doe had tr[i]ed to a[m]bush me out [of] my cell with the inte[n]tion to try to kill me
with the help of his co-workers . . . .”). And the Plaintiff appears to have been a person
incarcerated or detained in a facility accused of, convicted of, or sentenced for violations
of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole. See Doc. 1 at 3 (“I was t[a]ken to
the Baldwin County LEC[.] I was booked on vi[ola]tion [of] probation for committing the
new offense of about 7-17-2016 in Monroe County Georgia . . . .”); id. at 11 (envelope
with “Baldwin County Jail” as the Plaintiff’s return address). Accordingly, the Prison
Litigation Reform Act applies. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997e(c)(1) (requiring limitations of a
plaintiff’s right to sue if the plaintiff is a prisoner and brings suit with respect to prison
conditions under § 1983), (h) (defining “prisoner” as “any person incarcerated or
detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated
delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation,
pretrial release, or diversionary program”).
Pursuant to the PLRA, the Court “shall . . . dismiss the complaint“ if the Court
finds that the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted” or the complaint ”seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Here, the Plaintiff seeks, to be
distributed to the families of police officers who are recent victims of targeted violence,
$250 million each from the following Defendants: the State of Georgia, Governor
Nathan Deal, State Attorney General Samuel Olens, Baldwin County Board of
Commissioners, “Baldwin County County Attorney”, Baldwin County Sheriff Bill Massey,

-2-

Baldwin County LEC, Georgia Department of Corrections, Bibb County Sheriff Davis,
Bibb County Board of Commissions, and Bibb County Attorney. Doc. 1 at 1, 9. A pro
se litigant’s pleadings “are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by
attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091,
1100 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). But even liberally
construed, the Plaintiff’s complaint, at least in the portions the Court can decipher,
clearly fails to state any non-frivolous claim or claim upon which relief can be granted.
Moreover, many of the Defendants plainly enjoy immunity from the suit, and the Plaintiff
has not alleged facts that would eliminate such immunity. In sum, the Plaintiff’s
complaint makes very little sense, and it fails to connect the Defendants to any
deprivation of the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Plaintiff’s complaint is
DISMISSED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this 7th day of December, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-3-