Bradshaw v. Military, Air Force, Marines, Army, Navy

Filing 8

ORDER finding as moot 6 Motion for Recusal; dismissing 7 Amended Complaint. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 5/2/2011. (nbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
SIGFRID N. BRADSHAW,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
MILITARY, AIR FORCE, MARINES, :
ARMY, and NAVY,
:
:
:
Defendants.
_______________________________ :

Civil Action No.
7:11-cv-49 (HL)

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Sigfrid N. Bradshaw’s (“Bradshaw”) amended
complaint. For the following reasons, the complaints are dismissed with prejudice
because they fail to state a claim.
I.

BACKGROUND
Bradshaw requested to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

The Court

screened his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and found that he was
unable to pay the costs and fees associated with his suit, but that his complaint was
frivolous. The Court granted Bradshaw IFP status and allowed Bradshaw to amend
his complaint.
Bradshaw filed an amended complaint. The entirety of his first complaint and
amended complaint read as follows:

A discrimination act based on sexual preference evaluation test rejection
of employment a discrimination act.
Discrimination in becoming an officer by not issuing a reasonable test to

pass test is considered to be difficult to pass.
The amended complaint fails to state a claim. As a result it must be dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

II.

§ 1915 SCREENING STANDARD
The decision to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim under §

1915(e)(2) is the same as is employed when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). A complaint is
subject to dismissal if it does not contain enough factual allegations to “raise a right
to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47,
78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)) (alteration in original).

It must be kept in mind that

a document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167
L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007).
Bradshaw’s complaints are unintelligible, even when construed liberally. There
are two sentences that describe discrimination regarding a test. There are no factual
allegations that form the basis of his complaint, there is no description of any legal
theory, and no allegation against any particular Defendant.

Accordingly, his

complaints do not raise a right to relief above the speculative level and must be
dismissed with prejudice.

The case is closed. The pending motion for recusal (Doc. 6) is denied as
moot.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Bradshaw at the
address provided by Bradshaw. The Clerk of Court is also directed to make an entry on
the record showing when this Order was mailed to Bradshaw.
SO ORDERED, this the 2 nd day of May, 2011.
s/ Hugh Lawson
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
lmc