United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Anthony G. Bryant, Plaintiff,
United States Department of Interior, United States Marshal, Attorney General of United States, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
GORDON BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a nonprisoner litigant
who is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). Pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(D.S.C.), the United States Magistrate Judge is
authorized to review the record and to submit findings and
recommendations to the United States District Judge. Upon
review, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Amended
Complaint (DE#9) should be summarily
dismissed, with prejudice, and
without issuance and service of process, and furthermore,
that a pre-filing injunction pursuant to Riddle be
entered,  for the following reasons:
se pleadings are given liberal construction and are held
to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). However, “[t]he ‘special judicial
solicitude' with which a district court should view ...
pro se filings does not transform the court into an
advocate. United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 797
(4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 2401
(2013). Only those questions which are squarely presented to
a court may properly be addressed.” Weller v. Dept.
of Soc. Servs., City of Baltimore, 901 F.2d 387, 391
(4th Cir. 1990). Giving “liberal construction”
does not mean that the Court can ignore a prisoner's
clear failure to allege facts that set forth a cognizable
claim. “Principles requiring generous construction of
pro se complaints ... [do] not require ... courts to
conjure up questions never squarely presented to them.”
Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278
(4th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1088 (1986).
Standard of Review
application, an indigent litigant may commence an action IFP
in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs
of proceeding with the lawsuit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the
statute allows the court to dismiss the case upon finding
that the action is “frivolous or malicious, ”
“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,
” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B). A finding of frivolity can be made where
the complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992).
Under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B), a claim based on a
meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte
“at any time.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 326 (1989). “Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a court
to dismiss a claim on the basis of a dispositive issue of
Inherent Authority to Dismiss Frivolous
United States Supreme Court has observed that federal
district courts possess inherent authority to dismiss a
frivolous case. Mallard v. U.S. District Court, 490
U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989) (“Section 1915(d) ...
authorizes courts to dismiss a ‘frivolous or
malicious' action, but there is little doubt they would
have power to do so even in the absence of this statutory
provision.”); see also Hagans v. Lavine, 415
U.S. 528, 536-537 (1974) (holding that federal district
courts may dismiss claims that are “so attenuated and
unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit”).
with such authority, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has
held that “frivolous complaints are subject to summary
dismissal pursuant to the inherent authority of the
court.” Ross v. Baron, 493 Fed.Appx. 405, 406
(4th Cir. Aug. 22, 2012); Cabbill v. United States,
No. 1:14-cv-4122-JMC-PJG, 2015 WL 6905072, *5 (D.S.C. Nov. 9,
2015) (same), appeal dism'd, 2016 WL 1085106
(4th Cir. Mar. 21, 2016); Anderson v. Patterson, No.
6:16-761-MGL-JDA, 2016 WL 1743095 (D.S.C. April 12, 2016),
adopted, 2016 WL 1732763 (D.S.C. May 2, 2016).
“A suit is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in
law or fact.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325;
McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391, 399 (4th Cir.
2009). Therefore, the Amended Complaint is subject to review
pursuant to the inherent authority of this Court to ensure
that subject matter jurisdiction exists and that the case is
not frivolous. See e.g., Carter v. Ervin, No.
0:14-cv-00865-TLW-PJG, 2014 WL 2468351, *3 (D.S.C. June 2,
2014), appeal dism'd, 585 Fed.Appx. 98 (4th Cir.
2014); Mayhew, 2014 WL 468938 at *1, fn.1
(exercising inherent authority to summarily dismiss a
filed a nonsensical Complaint (DE#1, 09/24/2018). This Court
gave Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his pleading. (DE# 6,
Order of 09/27/2018). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
(DE# 9, 10/01/2018). Plaintiff names the following parties as
Defendants: the United States Department of Interior, the
United States Marshal, and the Attorney General of United
States. He checks the box for “federal question
jurisdiction” and states that the basis for
jurisdiction is: “the Identity Theft and Assumption and
Deterrence Act, False Claims Act, Administrative
Procedure.” (Id. at 3, ¶ II.A). In his
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff's “Statement of the
Claim” consists of the following (verbatim):
South Carolina State Trooper ticket 1989 was used to deem
Plaintiff IO complaint under False Claims Act leading to
physical reprisal 2010
(DE# 9 at 5, ¶ III). For relief, Plaintiff states
South Carolina state trooper ticket 1989 served 2013 led to a
physical reprisal for filing complaint one million eight
hundred [illegible] dollars
(Id. at 5, ¶ IV “Relief”).
of the Amended Complaint reflects multiple grounds for
Failure to State a Claim
United States Supreme Court has made it clear that more than
conclusory statements are required to state a plausible
claim. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-79
(2009). A plaintiff must allege specific facts that
adequately support the claim. Id. The Amended
Complaint fails to state any factual or legal basis for any
federal claims. Although courts give “liberal
construction” to pro se pleadings, the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals has emphasized that federal courts
may not “ignore a petitioner's clear failure to
allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim.”
Wilson, 699 F.3d at 797.
allegations of the Amended Complaint are nonsensical and
incomprehensible. Plaintiff does not allege any supporting
facts that suggesting a constitutional violation or any
violation of federal law. The Amended Complaint consists of
disjointed phrases that fail to state any sort of coherent
claim. Even liberally construing the allegations of Amended
Complaint, it is not possible to discern any plausible claims
from the disconnected sentence fragments in it. The Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals has emphasized that
“[p]rinciples requiring generous ...