Nobles v. QMB Port Health Insurance et al
Filing
8
OPINION AND ORDER that Plaintiff Shanta Nobles's Complaint 13 is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing 5 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 3/24/2016. (anc)
Plaintiff “is do [sic] benefit premium from QMB Port Health insurance state of
DNR,” “Insurance premium from state of QMB health Insurance premium Benefit
thank you,” and “2010 old benefit premium is do benefit QMB port Health
insurance State of Georgia QMB premium benefit.” (Compl. at 1). Plaintiff also
includes forty one (41) pages of attachments consisting almost entirely of letters
addressed to Plaintiff from the Social Security Administration.
Plaintiff previously filed a similar action naming the Social Security
Administration as a defendant. Nobles v. Social Security Administration, No.
1:15-cv-94 (N.D. Ga. 2015). After allowing Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her
deficient original complaint, the Court dismissed the action as frivolous.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
A court must dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if at any time the
court determines the action is frivolous or malicious or that it fails to state a claim
on which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). “Failure to state
a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard as dismissal for
failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).” Wilkerson v. H&S, Inc.,
366 F. App’x 49, 51 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483,
1490 (11th Cir. 1997)). Under this standard, “a complaint must contain sufficient
2
factual matter, accepted as true, 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)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Review for frivolousness, on the other hand, “‘accords judges not only the
authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but
also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and
dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” See
Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Neitzke
v.Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). A claim is frivolous when it “has little or
no chance of success,” that is, when it appears “from the face of the complaint that
the factual allegations are ‘clearly baseless’ or that the legal theories are
‘indisputably meritless.’” Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993)
(quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327).
Plaintiff filed her Complaint pro se. “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.”
3
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted). Nevertheless, a pro se plaintiff must comply with the threshold
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Beckwith v. Bellsouth
Telecomms. Inc., 146 F. App’x 368, 371 (11th Cir. 2005). “Even though a pro se
complaint should be construed liberally, a pro se complaint still must state a claim
upon which the Court can grant relief.” Grigsby v. Thomas, 506 F. Supp. 2d 26,
28 (D.D.C. 2007). “[A] district court does not have license to rewrite a deficient
pleading.” Osahar v. U.S. Postal Serv., 297 F. App’x 863, 864 (11th Cir. 2008).
B.
Analysis
Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions in her Complaint fail to state a cognizable
claim. Although, for the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court must take all
of the factual allegations in the Complaint as true, the Court is “not bound to
accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678. The Court also deems that, because Plaintiff’s Complaint is patently
frivolous, any amendment would be futile. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint
fails to state a claim for relief, and is required to be dismissed.1
1
Because this action is dismissed, Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing [5] is denied
as moot.
4
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Shanta Nobles’s Complaint [13]
is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing [5] is
DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED this 24th day of March, 2016.
_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?