Anthony Mills v. Arlene Bluth

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

ANTHONY MILLS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV 126-036 ) ARLENE BLUTH, ) ) Defendant. )

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the above captioned case. Because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, his complaint must be screened to protect potential defendants. Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). I. Screening the Complaint A. Background Plaintiff alleges without any elaboration: “Defendant conspired with individuals in depriving due process rights. Defendant failed to dismiss 100269/2023 causing unreasonable cost to the parties.” (Doc. no. 1, p. 1.) Plaintiff seeks $1,000,000 in damages. (Id.) B. Discussion 1. Legal Standard for Screening The complaint or any portion thereof may be dismissed if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “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) (per curiam) (citing Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997)). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the

allegations in the complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). That is, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. While Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The complaint is insufficient if it “offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,’” or if it “tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). In short, the complaint must provide a “‘plain statement’ possess[ing] enough heft to ‘sho[w] that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Finally, the Court affords a liberal construction to a pro se litigant’s pleadings, holding

them to a more lenient standard than those drafted by an attorney. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, this liberal construction does not mean that the Court has a duty to re-write the complaint. See Bilal v. Geo Care, LLC, 981 F.3d 903, 911 (11th Cir. 2020); Snow v. DirecTV, Inc., 450 F.3d 1314, 1320 (11th Cir. 2006). 2. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted Plaintiff's allegations fail to state any facts that would give rise to jurisdiction or any type of claim. He provides no details about whom Defendant is alleged to have conspired with, or how. Vague and conclusory allegations will not support a conspiracy claim. Kearson v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 763 F.2d 405, 407 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam); see also Hernandez v. Echarte, No. 24-11488, 2024 WL 4235458, at *1 (11th Cir. Sept. 19, 2024) (per curiam) (citing Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 556-57 (11th Cir. 1984) for proposition vague and conclusory conspiracy allegations insufficient to state claim)); Fullman, 739 F.2d at 557 (“It is not enough to simply aver in the complaint that a conspiracy existed.”). Nor does Plaintiff provide any details about “100269/2023” or why failing to dismiss it caused “unreasonable cost to the parties.” As the complaint is but “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed- me accusation” that ““‘tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement,”” it fails to state a claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). Il. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’ s case be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and this civil action be CLOSED. SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 2026, at Augusta, Georgia.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA