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

Decision Date09 October 2018
Docket NumberCase No. 2:18-cv-2593-MBS-MGB
CourtU.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
PartiesAnthony G. Bryant, Plaintiff, v. United States Department of Interior, United States Marshal, Attorney General of United States, Defendants.

Anthony G. Bryant, Plaintiff,
v.
United States Department of Interior, United States Marshal,
Attorney General of United States, Defendants.

Case No. 2:18-cv-2593-MBS-MGB

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

October 9, 2018


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Anthony 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,1 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

Page 2

'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 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 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. Mallard v. U.S. District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989)

Page 3

("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").

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); 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, 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, 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. Allegations

Plaintiff 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

Page 4

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 (verbatim):

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").

III. Discussion

Review of the Amended Complaint reflects multiple 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 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.

The 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

Page 5

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 also submitted several sets of "Objections to Report and Recommendation," even though no Report and Recommendation had been entered yet in this case. (DE# 8, 13). Those "Objections" are disconnected in logic and grammar, refer to unrelated events, and have been repetitively filed in other pending cases. For example, Plaintiff states:

The Government does not protect the public from the DEEP WEB data that cannot index or cannot find because they are passwords protected or require software comment made to Commission on Law Enforcement Agencies Inc. years 2016 Charleston County Sheriff's Office and 2017 City of Charleston Police Department regarding 1970 Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act 1986 Sentencing Laws, 1994 Crime Bill did not prevent drug abuse but criminalized a public health crisis mainly in census tracts in violation of U.S.C. § 241 and 242 Color of the Law as standard and/or best practices. The use of the DARK WEB to entrap occurs anonymously using a special masking for example "Onion Routers."

(DE#8). The Plaintiff also filed such "Objections" in Case No. 2:18-cv-2582-MBS-MGB (see DE#11).

The exhibits attached to the initial Complaint in the present case shed no light on Plaintiff's allegations, and any relevance cannot be discerned. (DE#1-1). Such exhibits include: page 1 [of 5 pages] from a 2009-2010 Grant to Charleston County by the DOJ's "Office on Violence against Women" (at 1);2 a response letter (stamped 2009) from the Department of the Interior advising that with respect to Plaintiff's complaint "against the city of South Carolina" regarding an arena project, it had "no jurisdiction in this matter" (at 2); a receipt (with illegible scribbling in the margins) indicating that Plaintiff had applied for a Social Security card in 2009 (at 3); and a 2013

Page 6

response letter to Plaintiff's FOIA request for records from the Executive Office for the United States Attorneys ("EOUSA") (at 4-5). The Court cannot discern any relevance of such documents to any allegations in the Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff mentions one statute -- the "False Claims Act" -- in his "statement of the Claim" in his Amended Complaint. (DE# 9 at 5). See 31 U.S.C. § 3729. The False Claims Act ("FCA") permits either the Attorney General or a private party to initiate a civil action alleging fraud on the United States. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(a-b). A private enforcement action under the FCA is called a qui tam action. United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of NY, 556 U.S. 928, 932 (2009); Vermont Agency of Nat. Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 769 (2000). "The purpose of the [FCA] is to enhance the Government's ability to recover losses sustained as a result of fraud against the...

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