Clark v. Cobb Cnty.

• Decision Date: 30 March 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 1:21-CV-5078-SDG-JSA
• Parties: RONALD MARK CLARK, Inmate No. 1039639, Plaintiff, v. COBB COUNTY, CITY OF MARIETTA; et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

RONALD MARK CLARK, Inmate No. 1039639, Plaintiff,
v.
COBB COUNTY, CITY OF MARIETTA; et al. Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:21-CV-5078-SDG-JSA

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

March 30, 2022

PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. §1983

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JUSTIN S. ANAND UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Plaintiff Ronald Mark Clark's pro se civil rights action. The matter is before the Court for a frivolity screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A.

I. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A Frivolity Review

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A, a federal court is required to conduct an initial screening of a prisoner complaint to determine whether the action is: (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§1915A(b). A claim is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). To state a claim, a pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

1

relief[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “A plaintiff . . . must plead facts sufficient to show that [his] claim has substantive plausibility” and to inform the defendant of “the factual basis” for the complaint. Johnson v. City of Shelby, Miss., 574 U.S. 10, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014).

In reviewing whether a plaintiff has stated a claim, the Court presumes the truth of a plaintiff's non-frivolous factual allegations, construing them in the plaintiff's favor. Gissendaner v. Commissioner, Ga. Dep't of Corr., 803 F.3d 565, 578 (11th Cir. 2015). Additionally, the Court holds pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers, Bingham, 654 F.3d at 1175, but “this leniency does not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

II. Plaintiff's Claims

Plaintiff names as Defendants Cobb County, former Cobb County Sheriff Neil Warren, the Chief of the Cobb County Jail, and a bail bonds company. (Doc. 1). He complains that after his arrest in Cobb County in 2017, he was granted bond; the bail bonds company took over $9,000.00 from Plaintiff's mother which she paid from Plaintiff's Social Security disability benefits; before Plaintiff could be released he was transferred to Central State Hospital for a competency evaluation; and when he

2

returned to the Cobb County Jail on December 8, 2017, he was not released on bond and never received a refund of his money. Plaintiff also complains that he was transferred “out of [the] prison system entirely” for “filing any lawsuits and post conviction montions [sic]” and that as a result he suffered actual injury because he missed deadlines and lost his lawsuit. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

III. Analysis of Plaintiff's Claims

A. Res Judicata Precludes Plaintiff From Bringing His Bond Claim.

In connection with his allegations that his mother paid for his bond with his Social Security benefits, Plaintiff raised a nearly identical claim in a fifth amended complaint in a previous case before this Court. See Clark v. State of Ga., Civil Action No. 1:21-CV-3396-SDG at Doc. 17. It is appropriate for the Court to consider res judicata at the frivolity stage. See, e.g., Harmon v. Webster, 263 Fed.Appx. 844, 846 (11th Cir. 2008) (affirming district court's §1915A frivolity dismissal based on res judicata); accord O'Berry v. State Att'ys Off., 241 Fed.Appx. 654, 659 (11th Cir. 2007).

“Res judicata ‘bars the filing of claims which were raised or could have been raised in an earlier proceeding.'”^[1] Griffin v. Focus Brands, Inc., 685 Fed.Appx. 758, 760 (11th Cir. 2017)

3

(quoting Ragsdale v....