IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA WAYCROSS DIVISION

NORMAN HAMPTON,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:24-cv-40

v.

L. JONES, et al.,

Defendants.

O RDE R Plaintiff filed this action, asserting claims under

. Doc. 1. This matter is before the Court for a frivolity screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons stated below, I DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety, DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal, and DENY Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.1 I DENY as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Subpoena and Motion for Discovery. Docs. 19, 21. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS2 Plaintiff is a prisoner at Lee State Prison in Leesburg, Georgia. Doc. 1 at 3. Plaintiff claims the Georgia Department of Corrections (“GDOC”) and Central Georgia Technical College (“CGTC”) unofficially enrolled him in a custodial maintenance job training curriculum while he was housed at Ware State Prison in Waycross, Georgia. Id. at 5. Plaintiff states CGTC

1 Plaintiff has consented to the undersigned’s plenary review. Doc. 7.

2 All allegations set forth here are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint. Doc. 1. During frivolity review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, “[t]he complaint’s factual allegations must be accepted as true.” Waldman v. Conway,

(11th Cir. 2017). credited him with completing 320 hours of on-the-job training and gave him a certification of completion. Plaintiff states he never participated in any curriculum and has never been enrolled in any classes during his incarceration. Plaintiff claims GDOC and CGTC misappropriated federal funds by fraudulently enrolling him in the program.

STANDARD OF REVIEW A federal court is required to conduct an initial screening of all complaints filed by prisoners and plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a), 1915(a). During the initial screening, the court must identify any cognizable claims in the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Additionally, the court must dismiss the complaint (or any portion of the complaint) that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or which seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. The pleadings of unrepresented parties are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys and, therefore, must be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner,

(1972). However, Plaintiff’s unrepresented status will not excuse mistakes regarding procedural

rules. McNeil v. United States,

(1993). A claim is frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if it is “without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Moore v. Bargstedt,

(11th Cir. 2006). In order to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). To state a claim, a complaint must contain “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not” suffice. Twombly,

. DISCUSSION I. Plaintiff’s Claims Against Defendants Jones, Allen, Cartell, and Best The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held a district court properly dismisses a defendant where a plaintiff fails to state any allegations that associate the defendant with a legal

wrong. Douglas v. Yates,

, 1321–22 (11th Cir. 2008) (“While we do not require technical niceties in pleading, we must demand that the complaint state with some minimal particularity how overt acts of the defendant caused a legal wrong.”). Plaintiff has not made any allegations against Defendants Jones, Allen, Cartell, and Best. Although Plaintiff lists all Defendants in the case caption, he has not alleged any facts related to any of these Defendants in his Complaint. Plaintiff merely makes broad allegations against the Georgia Department of Corrections and Central Georgia Technical College about his enrollment in a job training curriculum. Plaintiff makes no allegations showing any actions by the named Defendants. Plaintiff has failed to state any allegations associating Defendants Jones, Allen, Cartell, and Best with a legal wrong. For these reasons, I DISMISS Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Jones,

Allen, Cartell, and Best, the only named Defendants in this case. II. Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis The Court also denies Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Though Plaintiff has not yet filed a notice of appeal, it is appropriate to address that issue in the Court’s order of dismissal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3) (noting trial court may certify appeal is not taken in good faith “before or after the notice of appeal is filed”). An appeal cannot be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies, either before or after the notice of appeal is filed, the appeal is not taken in good faith.

(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Good faith in this context must be judged by an objective standard. Busch v. County of Volusia,

(M.D. Fla. 1999). A party does not proceed in good faith when he seeks to advance a frivolous claim or argument. See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). A claim or argument is frivolous when it appears the factual allegations are clearly baseless or the legal theories are indisputably meritless. Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989); Carroll v. Gross,

(11th Cir. 1993). An in forma pauperis action is frivolous and not brought in good faith if it is “without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Moore v. Bargstedt,

(11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Bilal v. Driver,

(11th Cir. 2001)); see also Brown v. United States, Nos. 407CV085, 403CR001,

, at *1—2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009). Based on the above analysis of Plaintiffs action, there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, and an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Thus, 1 DENY Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, I DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety, DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal, and DENY Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. I DENY as moot Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoena and Motion for Discovery. Docs. 19, 21. SO ORDERED, this 21st day of May, 2025.

BENTAMIN W.CHEESBRO. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA