“Examples of frivolous claims include those whose factual allegations are ‘so nutty,’ ‘delusional,’ or ‘wholly fanciful’ as to be simply ‘unbelievable.’”
How later courts described this case
- “Examples of frivolous claims include those whose factual allegations are ‘so nutty,’ ‘delusional,’ or ‘wholly fanciful’ as to be simply ‘unbelievable.’”
- “Liberal construction of the pleadings is particularly appropriate where … there is a pro se complaint raising civil rights issues.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:19-cv-132-GCM
RASHAD RANZY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLC, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of the Amended Complaint, (Doc.
No. 6).1 Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 4).
I. BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff purports to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, whose address of
record is in Charlotte, names as Defendants the private law firm of Crumley Roberts, LLP, and
the firm’s president, Christopher H. Roberts, of Greensboro, N.C. Plaintiff states that Defendants
were acting under color of state law at the time the claims occurred. (Doc. No. 6 at 2).
The Complaint’s “Nature of Case” section states that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights have
been disparaged and that he needs an attorney to pursue justice in light of the race and disability
discrimination he has experienced at the hands of “the federal government and [his] mother,
which is official through the eyes of the ‘Judiciary’ as of June 6, 2015.” (Doc. No. 6 at 3). He
claims that he is disabled due to “arrested developmental” and that Crumley Roberts is a
personal injury/disability law firm that advertises “[w]e stand up for you.” (Doc. No. 6 at 3). On
1 The Complaint was dismissed without prejudice on initial review and Plaintiff was provided the
opportunity to amend. See Thomas v. Salvation Army So. Terr., 841 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2016).
1
February 28, 2019, Plaintiff sent the law firm an email explaining his injury and the
discrimination he has experienced. An unknown individual phoned him on March 6, 2019 and
was “frivolous and malicious” to Plaintiff and “tried to put [Plaintiff] on a wild chase.” (Doc.
No. 6 at 3). Plaintiff was never appointed a lawyer or received a consultation to “start the process
of remedying or terminating, [Plaintiff] being a victim, of race and disability discrimination, at
the hands of the federal government and [his] mother.” (Doc. No. 6 at 3). He claims that the law
firm discriminated against him because he is African-American and disabled and failed to
“appoint” a lawyer to represent him and thus “compelled [him] to have to deal with the ordeal,
torture, of being a, victim of, race and disability discrimination, at the hands of the federal
government and [his] mother, by discriminating against [him] or [his] case of, being a victim of
race and disability discrimination, at the hands of the federal government and [his] mother,
because of [his] race, being an African-American and [his] disability, being a person subject to
arrested developmental.” (Doc. No. 6 at 5). Plaintiff claims that Defendants subjected him to
“advertisement injury” by choosing not to represent him which is “torture.” (Doc. No. 6 at 4).
As relief, Plaintiff seeks an apartment and utilities, money for food and clothing, and
attorneys to “start the process, of terminating or remedying me being a victim, of race and
disability discrimination, at the hands of the federal government and [his] mother, from law firm,
Crumley Roberts, LLP [and] … that [his] relief requests, are not disparaging.” (Doc. No. 6 at
13).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review the Amended
Complaint to determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or
malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against
2
a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). The Court must
determine whether the Amended Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is
founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires “a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93
(2007). The statement of the claim does not require specific facts; instead, it “need only ‘give the
defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Id. (quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). However, the statement must assert
more than “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
A pro se complaint must be construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972); see also Smith v. Smith, 589 F.3d 736, 738 (4th Cir. 2009) (“Liberal construction of the
pleadings is particularly appropriate where … there is a pro se complaint raising civil rights
issues.”). However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit a district court to ignore
a clear failure to allege facts in the complaint which set forth a claim that is cognizable under
federal law. Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
III. DISCUSSION
The conclusory, repetitious, and nonsensical allegations fail to adequately describe how
each of the Defendants – a law firm and private attorney – was a state actor or violated Plaintiff’s
rights under the color of state law. To the extent that Plaintiff alludes to a disability and
discrimination, these references likewise too vague and conclusory to state a claim and are
frivolous. See generally Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual
3
frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible....”); McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391, 399 (4™ Cir. 2009) (“Examples of
frivolous claims include those whose factual allegations are ‘so nutty,’ ‘delusional,’ or ‘wholly
fanciful’ as to be simply ‘unbelievable.’”). Indeed, the allegations are so severely deficient that
the Court cannot conclude that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. For all the
foregoing reasons, the Amended Complaint will be dismissed.
Plaintiff is cautioned that repeated frivolous filings before the Court may result in the
imposition of sanctions including a pre-filing injunction.
IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has failed to establish the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction and the
Amended Complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-Gi). The Amended Complaint will therefore be
dismissed and this case will be closed.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED as frivolous and for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)@)-
(i) and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed close this case.
Signed: October 2, 2019
Lah!
United States District Judge ge