Jacobs v. Atlanta Police Department et al
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER that Plaintiff Erika Jacobs shall, on or before April 8, 2016, file an Amended Complaint that complies with Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Amended Complaint must identify the claims Plaintiff seeks to assert against each Defendant, and the specific facts Plaintiff claims support each claim. Failure to comply with this Order shall result in dismissal of this action pursuant to Local Rule 41.3A(2). Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 3/23/2016. (anc)
Plaintiff’s Complaint [3] alleges violations of “Constitutional Rights and
Negligence of Georgia Police Departments.” (Compl. at 1). She brings this action
under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq., which
prohibits discrimination based on race and national origin by state and local
agencies that receive federal funding. She also asserts claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 based on violations of the first, fourth, an fourteenth amendments.
Plaintiff claims her rights were violated by police officers on multiple
occasions. She claims that, in October 2013, she was taken to the police station at
the “Atlanta Hartsfield Airport where she was searched on her body of property
[sic] (purse + backpack).” (Compl. at 2). She claims that officers told her she was
only allowed in the airport during morning hours. (Id.). She alleges that, also in
October 2013, “Police transported Plaintiff in a van to College park Station and
departed.” (Id.).
Plaintiff also claims police officers subjected her to multiple instances of
verbal abuse and harassment. For instance, she alleges that, on March 10, 2015,
she was “falsely accused of not having her lights on by the Riverdale Police.”
(Id.). A MARTA police officer, “McGruff, called Plaintiff a wellfare [sic]
mother.” (Id.).
2
Plaintiff claims police failed to provide her protection. She claims her purse
was stolen, but MARTA police “stated to Plaintiff that she never had a black
purse . . . [t]hus rendering Plaintiff’s report of theft of purse false.” (Id. at 3)
Plaintiff also claims she was the subject of racial profiling when she was
“stopped by J.B. Melton on 4-9-14 while walking down the street for no reason.”
(Id.).
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of Review
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
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
3
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.”
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
4
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
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, and has determined that it
does not comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 8 requires that a claim for relief must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 10 requires that a
party “state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as
practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff’s
Complaint does not comply with these rule because it contains four “paragraphs,”
each of which contains a laundry list of allegations involving multiple sets of
circumstances, individuals, and alleged claims.
The Court requires Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint, on or before
April 8, 2016, that complies with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Amended Complaint must identify the claims Plaintiff seeks to
assert against each Defendant, and the specific facts Plaintiff claims support each
claim.
5
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Erika Jacobs shall, on or before
April 8, 2016, file an Amended Complaint that complies with Rule 10 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Amended Complaint must identify the
claims Plaintiff seeks to assert against each Defendant, and the specific facts
Plaintiff claims support each claim. Failure to comply with this Order shall result
in dismissal of this action pursuant to Local Rule 41.3A(2).
SO ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2016.
_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?