Wilson v. Braithwaite et al
Filing
13
OPINION AND ORDER granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 10 , finding as moot Magistrate Judge J. Clay Fuller's Final Report and Recommendation 8 and dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 10/3/17. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER B. WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:17-cv-1329-WSD
J.O. BRAITHWAITE, CITY OF
ALPHARETTA, and FULTON
COUNTY,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge J. Clay Fuller’s Final
Report and Recommendation [8] (“R&R”), recommending that this action be
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Also before the
Court is Plaintiff Christopher B. Wilson’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint [10] (“Motion to Amend”).
I.
BACKGROUND
On February 11, 2017, Plaintiff, a prisoner, filed his pro se Civil Rights
Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [1] (“Initial Complaint”). On
July 5, 2017, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s Initial Complaint and issued
his R&R, recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
On July 14, 2017, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, and proposed Amended
Complaint, were entered on the docket.1
Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint [10] alleges that, on July 30, 2015,
Defendant J.O. Braithwaite (“Braithwaite”), a Fulton County police officer,
falsely stated, “in his statement of wittnesses [sic],” that Plaintiff “did not show
up.” (Am. Compl. at 2). Plaintiff alleges that Braithwaite’s statement
“suggest[ed] falsely [that Plaintiff] had abandoned the construction project [he]
was doing,” when, in fact, he was “incarcerated in Forsyth County Jail at the time.”
(Am. Compl. at 2). Plaintiff further alleges that, on July 30, 2015, Braithwaite
falsely stated, in his “case supplemental,” that Plaintiff “said he had to be honest
with [Braithwite] as he has used rest [sic] of the money for other jobs. His hope
was to complete the other jobs although he has spread money throughout various
other jobs.” (Am. Compl. at 2). Plaintiff also alleges that Braithwaite falsely
stated, in an unnamed forum, that Plaintiff “did not use the money he received
from victims for their project, hence he cannot repay them.” (Am. Compl. at 3).
Plaintiff states, confusingly, that he “did tell [Braithwaite that Plaintiff] would be
able to complete upon [his] release and (or) be able to get [his] crew to complete
project if [Braithwaite] could call them, as [Braithwaite] stated he did contact
1
Plaintiff apparently executed the Motion to Amend on July 4, 2017.
2
[Plaintiff’s] crew but never actually call[ed] them at all.” (Am. Compl. at 3).
Plaintiff does not explain, or elaborate on, these allegations.
Plaintiff asserts claims for “perjury 1st degree”; “breach of oath of office
5 USC 3331”; “bad faith and malicious prosecution”; “vindictive prosecution”;
“conspiracy against rights (18 USC 241)”; “false statements (etc)”; intentional
infliction of emotional distress; “substantive due process violations of Plaintiff’s
4th, 5th and 6th Amendments”; violations of the “due process clauses of the
5th and 14th Amendments”; “deprivation of liberty of the 4th and 5th
Amendments”; “state torts of false arrest and false imprisonment due to false
statements”; “abuse of power as this abusive litigation in violation of due process
under color of law (18 USC 242)”; “deprivation under color of law (18 USC 242)”;
“fraud (18 USC 1001)”; and “unlawful seizure a violation of the th [sic]
Amendment to the Constitution.” (Am. Compl. at 3-5).
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A.
Frivolity Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
A federal court must screen “a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court is required to dismiss the complaint if it
is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,”
3
or if it “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A claim is frivolous, and must be dismissed, where it
“lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091,
1100 (11th Cir. 2008). To state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
“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)).
Mere “labels and conclusions” are insufficient. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (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). This requires more than the “mere possibility of
misconduct.” Am. Dental, 605 F.3d at 1290 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).
The well-pled allegations must “nudge[] [plaintiff’s] claims across the line from
conceivable to plausible.” Id. at 1289 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
Plaintiff filed his complaints 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). Nevertheless, a pro se plaintiff must
4
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.
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S.
1112 (1983). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). With respect to those findings and
recommendations to which objections have not been asserted, the Court must
conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093,
1095 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984).
5
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
Plaintiff moved to file his proposed Amended Complaint after the
Magistrate Judge issued his R&R. Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of
course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a
responsive pleading is required, 21 after days after service of a responsive pleading
or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is
earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. (a)(1). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading
only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court
should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is granted because it is Plaintiff’s first
amendment and it was filed “before the district court dismissed his complaint and
before any responsive pleadings were filed.” See Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d
1344, 1349 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that the district court was required to grant
plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint where it was filed “before the district
court dismissed his complaint and before any responsive pleadings were filed,” and
where it was filed after an R&R was issued recommending dismissal on a frivolity
review). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [10] supersedes the Initial Complaint on
6
which the Magistrate Judge conducted his frivolity review. See Malowney v. Fed.
Collection Deposit Grp., 193 F.3d 1342, 1345 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999) (“An amended
complaint supersedes an original complaint.”); Gulf Coast
Recycling, Inc. v. Johnson Controls, Inc., No. 8:07-cv-2143, 2008 WL 434880,
at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2008) (“An amended complaint completely supersedes
the original complaint, and once a complaint is amended, the only issues before the
Court are the ones raised in the text of the amended complaint.”). The Magistrate
Judge’s R&R is thus moot, and the Court conducts its frivolity review of Plaintiff’s
newly filed Amended Complaint.
B.
Whether Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Requires Dismissal Under
28 U.S.C. 1915A
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is incoherent and difficult to follow.
Construed liberally, it alleges that, on July 30, 2015, Braithwaite falsely stated,
“in his statement of wittnesses [sic],” that Plaintiff “did not show up.”
(Am. Compl. at 2). Plaintiff alleges that Braithwaite’s statement “suggest[ed]
falsely [that Plaintiff] had abandoned the construction project [he] was doing,”
when, in fact, he was “incarcerated in Forsyth County Jail at the time.”
(Am. Compl. at 2). Plaintiff further alleges that, on July 30, 2015, Braithwaite
falsely stated, in his “case supplemental,” that Plaintiff “said he had to be honest
with [Braithwaite] as he has used rest of the money for other jobs. His hope was to
7
complete the other jobs although he has spread money throughout various other
jobs.” (Am. Compl. at 2). Plaintiff also alleges that Braithwaite falsely stated
Plaintiff “did not use the money he received from victims for their project, hence
he cannot repay them.” (Am. Compl. at 3). Plaintiff states, confusingly, that he
“did tell [Braithwaite that Plaintiff] would be able to complete upon [his] release
and (or) be able to get [his] crew to complete project if [Braithwaite] could call
them, as [Braithwaite] stated he did contact [Plaintiff’s] crew but never actually
call[ed] them at all.” (Am. Compl. at 3).
Plaintiff asserts approximately eighteen claims on the basis of these
undeveloped allegations, and he does not identify which allegations support which
claims. Plaintiff does not provide any information about his apparent arrest and
confinement, the “construction project” about which Braithwaite allegedly testified
falsely, or any of the other events referred to in the Amended Complaint. Even
construing Plaintiff’s allegations liberally, the Court is unable to determine the
factual basis of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint lacks
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. As a result, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is
dismissed without prejudice. Id. (“[A] complaint [does not] suffice if it tenders
naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.”); see Jackson, 372 F.3d
8
at 1263 (stating that “conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or
legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal,” and
dismissing plaintiffs’ claims because their supporting allegations were “wholly
conclusory, generalized, and non-specific”).
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint [10] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge J. Clay Fuller’s Final
Report and Recommendation [8] is MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED this 3rd day of October, 2017.
9
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?