Richard Morrison v. CCA Corr- Civil II ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • USCA11 Case: 21-11754    Date Filed: 12/27/2021    Page: 1 of 4
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eleventh Circuit
    ____________________
    No. 21-11754
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ____________________
    RICHARD MORRISON,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    CCA CORR - CIVIL,
    Coffee's Private Prison,
    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF GEORGIA,
    U.S. ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
    DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    USCA11 Case: 21-11754          Date Filed: 12/27/2021       Page: 2 of 4
    2                        Opinion of the Court                   21-11754
    ____________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Georgia
    D.C. Docket No. 7:20-cv-00238-HL-TQL
    ____________________
    Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Richard Morrison, a prisoner currently incarcerated at the
    Wilcox State Prison in Abbeville, Georgia, appeals pro se the dis-
    trict court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration and dismissal
    of his writ of mandamus without prejudice. Morrison argues that
    the district court violated his constitutional rights to due process
    and equal protection in large part by failing to inform him of the
    court’s filing fees before dismissing his claims for failure to state a
    claim upon which relief may be granted. Finding no error in the
    district court’s decision, we affirm.
    Morrison filed a writ of mandamus requesting that the dis-
    trict court compel this Court and the Georgia Secretary of State to
    foreclose on commercial liens and outstanding debts allegedly
    owed by the Department of Administrative Services and Core-
    Civic. Initially, he paid a portion of the district court’s filing fee. He
    then filed over a dozen motions, prompting the district court to
    order him to pay the remainder of the filing fee and recast his
    claims in a single complaint. Morrison paid the balance of the fee
    but otherwise failed to comply with the order, so the district court
    eventually dismissed his claims with prejudice.
    USCA11 Case: 21-11754          Date Filed: 12/27/2021      Page: 3 of 4
    21-11754                Opinion of the Court                           3
    We review a district court’s decision to dismiss a prisoner’s
    complaint for failure to state a claim de novo. Alba v. Montford,
    
    517 F.3d 1249
    , 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). A complaint fails to state a
    claim if it does not include “sufficient factual matter, accepted as
    true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft
    v. Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678 (2009) (quotation omitted).
    The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires district courts to
    screen prisoner-filed complaints that seek redress from a govern-
    ment entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Pro se
    pleadings, including those filed by prisoners, are “held to a less
    stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will,
    therefore, be liberally construed.” Miller v. Donald, 
    541 F.3d 1091
    ,
    1100 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). However, a court must
    dismiss the complaint if it is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
    claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A
    claim is frivolous under the Act if it lacks an arguable basis either
    in law or in fact. Miller, 
    541 F.3d at 1100
    . Thus, when conducting a
    preliminary screening, “wildly implausible allegations in the com-
    plaint should not be taken to be true, but the court ought not pe-
    nalize the litigant for linguistic imprecision in the more plausible
    allegations.” 
    Id.
    Morrison’s claims were properly dismissed. None of the al-
    legations in his filings are remotely plausible. For example, he con-
    tends that an unspecified party created and sold bonds in his name
    for “vast profitable monetary gains of millions and millions” of dol-
    lars. Based on this allegation alone, he asked the district court to
    USCA11 Case: 21-11754        Date Filed: 12/27/2021    Page: 4 of 4
    4                      Opinion of the Court               21-11754
    enter judgment in his favor for over $200,000,000. Under these cir-
    cumstances, the district court was not required to accept Morri-
    son’s allegations as true. Miller, 
    541 F.3d at 1100
    . Further, to the
    extent Morrison contends that the district court erred by requiring
    him to pay a filing fee, that issue is moot because he paid the fee.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-11754

Filed Date: 12/27/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/27/2021