Foxx v. Sturdivant et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Michael P. Mills on 3/30/17. (cr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
CARLOS FOXX

PLAINTIFF

v.

No. 4:16CV102-MPM-DAS

MARYLEN STURDIVANT, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The court, sua sponte, reviews this pro se prisoner complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
consideration of dismissal. The plaintiff complains that his state conviction for burglary should be
expunged. After carefully considering the contents of the pro se complaint and giving it the liberal
construction required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), the court has concluded that the
complaint is wholly without substantive merit.
The complaint contains no facts whatsoever regarding how plaintiff was allegedly wronged,
and has no information about how any of the defendants are connected to whatever the plaintiff thinks
the facts were. The plaintiff mentions at several points in his 47-page complaint that he would like for
his burglary conviction to be expunged. The rest of the complaint consists of innumerable citations to
utterly irrelevant authority, as well as several pages of exhibits regarding his burglary charge (to which
he pled guilty). Mr. Foxx clearly spent an enormous amount of time preparing this pleading, but it is
largely gibberish.
A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal
theory,” such as if the defendants are clearly immune from suit or if the complaint alleges the violation
of a legal interest that clearly does not exist. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 198 S.Ct. 1827,
1833, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Judges have “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s
factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless . . . .

Examples . . . are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios . . . .” Id., 490 U.S. at 327, 328.
The plaintiff’s allegations and arguments are impossible to interpret and baseless. As such, they will
be dismissed as frivolous. A final judgment consistent with this opinion will be entered today.

SO ORDERED, this, the 30th day of March, 2017.

/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI