Bryant v. U.S. Dep't of Educ.

Decision Date05 October 2018
Docket NumberCase No. 2:18-cv-2217-MBS-MGB
PartiesAnthony G. Bryant, Plaintiff, v. US Department of Education, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosive, Drug Enforcement Administration, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Anthony Bryant ("Plaintiff") is a nonprisoner litigant who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Local 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#11) should be summarily dismissed with prejudice, and without issuance and service of process for the following reasons:

I. Relevant Law

A. Liberal Construction

Pro 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).

B. Standard of Review

Upon application, an indigent litigant may commence an action "in forma pauperis" 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 law." Id.

C. Inherent Authority to Dismiss Frivolous Case

The United States Supreme Court has observed that federal district courts possess inherent authority to dismiss a frivolous case. See Mallard v. United States 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 federaldistrict courts may dismiss claims that are "so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit").

Consistent 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 F.App'x 405, 406 (4th Cir. Aug. 22, 2012); and see, e.g., Cabbill v. United States, Case 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, Case No. 6:16-761-MGL-JDA, 2016 WL 1743095 (D.S.C. April 12, 2016), adopted by 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 present 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, Case No. 0:14-cv-00865-TLW-PJG, 2014 WL 2468351, *3 (D.S.C. June 2, 2014), appeal dism'd, 585 F.App'x 98 (4th Cir. 2014); Mayhew, 2014 WL 468938 at *1, fn.1 (exercising inherent authority to summarily dismiss a frivolous case).

II. Backround

Plaintiff filed a nonsensical Complaint (DE# 1, 08/13/2018). This Court gave Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his pleading. (DE# 7, Order of 08/15/2018). Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint (DE# 11). In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names four federal agencies as Defendants: the United States Department of Education, Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosive ("ATF"), and the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA").

The Amended Complaint's "Statement of the Claim" consists of the following (verbatim):

Filed 1977 Inspector General complaint claiming waste, fraud and abuse of federal financial insurance racial patterns c 42 U.S.C. § 2000 and 42 U.S.C. § 3789 dc.

(DE# 11 at 5, ¶ III).

For relief, Plaintiff states the following (verbatim):

Fourteenth Amendment violated for requesting a performance audit by FBI, DEA, ATF and Homeland Security via ID theft U.S. Dept. of Education.

(Id., ¶ IV "Relief").

Plaintiff attaches nine pages of exhibits, none of which shed any light on his Amended Complaint. (DE# 11-1). The exhibits include: a letter response (stamped 2010) to Plaintiff's enquiry to the Department of Justice regarding the "effects of the Charleston County Incinerator (at 1); a 2013 letter response by the Department of Health and Human Services to a FOIA request by Plaintiff, explaining that it does "not routinely collect or retain the type of records in which you express interest" (at 2); a nonsensical 3-page letter by Plaintiff to the General Counsel for the Charleston County Consolidated Schools (at 3-5); a 2011 FOIA response letter from such counsel (at 6); the cover page of a pamphlet for the DOJ (at 7); a 2008 letter from SCDOT giving Plaintiff an extension of time to submit information for business certification (at 8); and a letter from the office of Senator Tim Scott (at 9).

III. Discussion

Review of the Amended Complaint reflects numerous grounds for summary dismissal.

A. Failure to State a Claim

The 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 present Complaint fails to stateany 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.

The allegations of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are nonsensical and incoherent. Plaintiff does not allege any supporting facts that suggest any constitutional violation or any violation of federal law. The Amended Complaint consists of disjointed phrases and citations that fail to state a claim. The Amended Complaint's attachments and other exhibits in the record do not clarify matters. (DE# 11-1, 15-25). Even liberally construing the allegations of the Amended Complaint, it is not possible to discern any plausible claims from the disconnected sentence fragments in it. For example, although Plaintiff lists 42 U.S.C. § 3789 (also known as the Safe Streets Act of 1968), the Amended Complaint makes no allegations pertaining to such statute. See, e.g. NAACP v. City of Myrtle Beach, Case No. 4:03-1732-25-TLW, 2006 WL 2038257 (D.S.C. July 20, 2006) (discussing such statute with respect to traffic patterns for events).

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has emphasized that "[p]rinciples requiring generous construction of pro se complaints ... [do] not require ... courts to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them." Beaudett, 775 F.2d at 1278. Plaintiff has submitted various attachments and hand-written "Declarations" that are disconnected in logic and grammar, and refer to unrelated events (DE# 15-23). Plaintiff also filed several documents labeled as "Objections" (DE#24-25), although no Report and Recommendation had been filed in this case at that time. The attached exhibits shed no light on the Amended Complaint, and any relevance cannot be discerned. The Amended Complaint fails to state a plausible claim, and therefore, summary dismissal is appropriate.

B. Frivolity

Moreover, the Amended Complaint appears to lack any arguable basis in law or in fact, and therefore is subject to dismissal as frivolous. Denton, 504 U.S. at 31. For example, Plaintiff lists 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 (the "Enforcement Act") as a basis for federal question jurisdiction. (DE# 11 at 3). However, Plaintiff has no private cause of action under such criminal statutes. See United States v. McLean, 808 F.2d 1044, 1046 (4th Cir. 1987) (discussing criminal prosecution under such statute). Any claim based on 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 fails as a matter of law since that federal criminal statute does not create a private right of action. See Davis v. Sarles, 134 F.Supp.3d 223, 228 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2015) (citing Crosby v. Catret, 308 F.App'x 453 (D.C.Cir. 2009) (per curiam) ("there is no private right of action under these criminal statutes"). This legal deficiency cannot be remedied through more specific factual pleading. Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 76 n.1 (4th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1022 (19...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT