United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
BOBBY D. GREEN, Plaintiff,
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INSURANCE et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
A. TRAUGER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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.
Standard of Review
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).
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).
“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).
Factual Allegations and Procedural Background
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
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.)
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. He demands
unspecified injunctive and declaratory relief and a jury