Fortson v. Termeer

• Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia
• Decided: January 3, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-04137
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

CAREY A. FORTSON, Plaintiff, v. RANDY TERMEER, PRESIDENT; KELLY ARMSTRONG, SECRETARY; UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION (USAA); PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE (USAA); CASUALTY Civil Action No. INSURANCE COMPANY, USAA; 1:24-cv-04137-SDG GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; USAA COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, NOBLR RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE; USAA LIMITED; USAA S.A.; and USAA S.A. UK BRANCH, Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) frivolity review of the Complaint filed by pro se Plaintiff Carey A. Fortson.1 Because the pleading fails to state a claim, this case must be dismissed. I. Background Fortson’s complaint stems from the timing of his cancellation of collision coverage with his insurer, USAA. Fortson was injured in a car accident on June 8, 2024. USAA apparently informed Fortson that his collision coverage was cancelled

1 ECF 3. effective June 6, 2024, so that the June 8 accident was not covered. Fortson disagrees and contends he paid for collision coverage for the period from June 6

to July 6, such that the accident should have been covered by his policy.2 Fortson’s sole claim related to this dispute, however, is for intentional infliction of emotional distress for the anguish he allegedly suffered because of USAA’s insistence that he

did not have coverage.3 II. Standard of Review Fortson is appearing pro se, so the Court construes the Complaint leniently and holds it “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by

lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (cleaned up); see also Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (similar). But that leniency does not permit the Court “to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading.” GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds

as recognized in Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir. 2010). And when a plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, as Fortson has,4 the case is subject to dismissal if the action is frivolous or the complaint fails to state a claim.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

2 See generally id. 3 ECF 5. 4 ECF 2. III. Discussion A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact, Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Christiansen v. Clarke, 147 F.3d 655, 658–59 (8th Cir. 1998). A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–

56 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). To recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), a plaintiff must show intentional or reckless conduct that is extreme and outrageous, and that caused severe

emotional distress. Trimble v. Cir. City Stores, Inc., 220 Ga. App. 498, 499 (1996). The conduct must “be of such serious import as to naturally give rise to such intense feelings of humiliation, embarrassment, fright or extreme outrage . . . .” Gordon v. Frost, 193 Ga. App. 517, 521 (1989). Whether conduct is extreme enough to support

an IIED claim is a question of law. Trimble, 220 Ga. App. at 499. Here, Fortson has not identified any extreme and outrageous conduct or facts that show how he suffered severe emotional distress as a result. As alleged,

he has described only a common contract coverage dispute. While the timing of the dispute—after he was injured in a car accident—may have caused Fortson concern, he has not described any conduct whatsoever by a named Defendant other than USAA itself. As to USAA, nothing in the Complaint suggests any outrageous behavior on its part. IV. Conclusion Fortson has failed to state a claim against any Defendant and his Complaint is therefore frivolous. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. SO ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 2025.

SL StevenD.Grimberg United States District Judge