Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Green v. Tennessee Department of Commerce And Insurance

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

July 25, 2019

BOBBY D. GREEN, Plaintiff,
v.
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INSURANCE et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM & ORDER

          ALETA A. TRAUGER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the court are plaintiff Bobby Green's pro se Complaint (Doc. No. 1) and Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 2). For good cause shown, the Application is GRANTED, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to file the Complaint in forma pauperis.

         Because the case proceeds in forma pauperis, the court must conduct an initial review of the Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). For the reasons set forth herein, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

         I. Standard of Review

         By law, the court must conduct an initial review of any civil complaint filed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Upon conducting this review, the court must dismiss the complaint, or any portion thereof, that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, is frivolous, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. The Sixth Circuit has confirmed that the dismissal standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), “governs dismissals for failure to state a claim under [that statute] because the relevant statutory language tracks the language in Rule 12(b)(6).” Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010).

         Thus, in reviewing the complaint to determine whether it states a plausible claim, “a district court must (1) view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true.” Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)). The court must then consider whether those factual allegations, accepted as true, “plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681). The court “need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences.” DirectTV, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007). (quoting Gregory v. Shelby Cty., 220 F.3d 433, 446 (6th Cir. 2000)). “[L]egal conclusions masquerading as factual allegations will not suffice.” Eidson v. State of Tenn. Dep't of Children's Servs., 510 F.3d 631, 634 (6th Cir. 2007).

         A “pro se complaint . . . must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Even under this lenient standard, pro se plaintiffs must meet basic pleading requirements. Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004).

         II. Factual Allegations and Procedural Background

         The plaintiff names as defendants the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance (“TDCI”); Division of Consumer Affairs; the Better Business Bureau; Walgreens Corp.; Mayor D. Briley; and as-yet unidentified Metro Council Members. (Doc. No. 1, at 1-2.) He alleges that the defendants are

engaged in (a) torturous campaign to settle a score of prolonged litigation, to immure [plaintiff] to as small of an area as they can possibly create for him. Creating provocative undesirable situation after situation, and kept him-intoto isolated and stranded in a car they won't allow him (see motion) to fix-they've broke it down before, enforcing “peonage conditions on him.”
Trying to create a existence for him where there is few places he can conduct business with subjecting him to “thefts (A)nd (A)ssaults slanderers, etc. without any recourse whatsoever either via courts or the Metro Police Department, to have them arrested nor prosecuted.

(Doc. No. 1, at 3.)

         The Complaint contains no additional factual allegations and is not accompanied by any motion other than one requesting the appointment of counsel to assist the plaintiff in marshalling facts and preventing further wrongdoing.[1] He demands unspecified injunctive and declaratory relief and a jury trial.

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.