SHEPPARD v. WARNER ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION STANLEY SHEPPARD, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-11 (MTT) ) WARNER ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE ) ) Defendant. ) ) ORDER Plaintiff Stanley Sheppard filed this pro se lawsuit and contemporaneously moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Docs. 1; 2. As discussed below, Sheppard satisfies the requirements of poverty, and his motion to proceed IFP (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. Along with granting Sheppard IFP status, the Court must also screen his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).1 After screening, the Court concludes that Sheppard’s complaint is deficient. Accordingly, within twenty-one days of the entry of this order Sheppard is ORDERED TO AMEND his complaint. Failure to fully and timely comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action.

I. DISCUSSION2 A. Financial Status When considering a motion to proceed IFP filed under § 1915(a), “[t]he only determination to be made by the court … is whether the statements in the affidavit satisfy the requirement of poverty.” Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2004). To show poverty, the plaintiff need not show that he is “absolutely destitute.” Martinez, 364 F.3d at 1307 (quoting Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 338-40 (1948)). Instead, the affidavit must demonstrate that the plaintiff, “because of his poverty, is unable to pay for the court fees and costs, and to support and provide necessities for himself and his dependents.” Martinez, 364 F.3d at 1307. Where a plaintiff demonstrates economic eligibility to file IFP, the court should docket the case and then “proceed to the question ... of whether the asserted claim is frivolous.” Id. Here, Sheppard’s financial affidavit states that he is unemployed with an average monthly income of $0. Doc. 2 at 1-2. Accordingly, the Court finds that Sheppard is unable to pay the costs and fees associated with this lawsuit, and his motion to proceed IFP (Doc. 2) is GRANTED.

B. Frivolity Review Along with granting Sheppard IFP status, the Court must review and dismiss his complaint if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is frivolous if it “has little or no chance of success,” meaning that it appears “from the face of the complaint that the factual allegations are ‘clearly baseless’ or that the legal theories are ‘indisputably meritless.’”

Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). “A dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim is governed by the same standard as a dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”3 Thomas v. Harris, 399 F. App’x 508, 509 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997)).

Sheppard filed this lawsuit against Warner Robins Air Force Base alleging wrongful termination and discrimination. Doc. 1. Sheppard alleges he was placed in a different area on base where he was required to use a machine he did not know how to use or train on. Id. at 4. Someone who knew how and was trained on the machine then came and corrected Sheppard. Id. Sheppard was presumably terminated sometime thereafter. Sheppard also cites a correspondence from the Georgia Department of Labor as evidence of discrimination, which states that Sheppard was fired for conduct unbecoming a federal employee but because the “[a]vailable facts d[id] not show that

Doc 1-3. Sheppard provides no other information about his claims. He does not, for instance, explain why he believes his termination was unlawful or allege that he was terminated because of a protected trait or status. Thus, Sheppard fails to state a claim of discrimination based on his termination, and he does not identify any other act that he believes was discriminatory.

Given Sheppard’s pro se status, however, the Court will afford him an opportunity to amend his complaint to state viable claims. See Duff v. Steub, 378 F. App’x 868, 872 (11th Cir. 2010). The Court will not look back to the facts alleged in the original complaint once the amended complaint is filed; the Court will only consider the facts in the amended complaint when it conducts the frivolity review required by § 1915(e)(2)(B). Hoefling v. City of Miami, 811 F.3d 1271, 1277 (11th Cir. 2016) (holding that the filing of an amended pleading renders the previous pleading a “legal nullity”).

In the “statement of claims” section of his amended complaint, Sheppard must link any claims he makes to the named defendant. If Sheppard fails to link the named defendant to a claim, the claim will be dismissed; if Sheppard makes no allegations in the body of his complaint against the named defendant, that defendant will be removed from the action and dismissed. Sheppard must provide enough facts to plausibly demonstrate that the defendant’s actions or omissions resulted in the violation of his rights under a specific law. It is also recommended that, when drafting his “statement of claims,” Sheppard list numbered responses to the following questions (to the extent possible) along with the name of the defendant: (1) What did the defendant do (or not do) to violate his rights? (2) When did each action occur? (3) How was Sheppard injured as a result of the defendant’s actions?

II. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Sheppard’s motion to proceed IFP (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Sheppard is ORDERED TO AMEND his complaint as stated in this order within twenty-one days of the entry of this order.

Failure to fully and timely comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 4

SO ORDERED, this 17th day of January, 2025.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT