Rowan v. Memphis Bonding Co., 2:13-cv-02549

Pro se plaintiff Brent A. Rowan filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Memphis Bonding Co., along with an IFP application; IFP status was granted.
Rowan alleged issues surrounding posting of his bond (by Ida B. Winston), an alleged unpaid bill for bonding services, and that his aunt used his ATM card to bail him out; he requested the court determine the amount due and to hold a bond hearing.
He asked the court to notify Memphis Bonding of his indigency/disability and to review bankruptcy-related documents (Chapter 7 or 13), and generally asked the court to determine whether his civil rights were violated.
The magistrate judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Rule 12(b)(6) standards (Twombly/Iqbal) to determine if it was frivolous or failed to state a claim.
The magistrate found the complaint deficient because it failed to allege how the private defendant acted under color of state law or how Rowan’s federal rights were violated.
Recommendation: dismiss for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) and certify any appeal would not be in good faith under § 1915(a)(3).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint states a § 1983 claim	Rowan alleges bond/posting and billing practices deprived him of rights and asks court to determine amount due and hold a bond hearing	(Implicit) Memphis Bonding is a private bonding company; no allegation it acted under color of state law	Complaint fails: Rowan did not allege defendant acted under color of state law or identify any deprivation of constitutional rights; dismiss for failure to state a § 1983 claim
Whether the pleading meets Rule 8 jurisdictional/pleading requirements	Rowan invoked § 1983 and sought relief (amount due, bond hearing, notice of indigency)	Pleading lacks jurisdictional allegations and factual framework tying defendant to state action	Complaint fails Rule 8: lacks short, plain statement of grounds for jurisdiction and factual allegations supporting § 1983 elements
Whether the complaint is frivolous under § 1915 screening	Rowan’s factual assertions presented grievances about bond billing and representation	Court may dismiss legally or factually frivolous in forma pauperis complaints	Complaint is dismissible under § 1915(e)(2) as not stating a non-frivolous claim; dismissal recommended
Whether an appeal would be in good faith for IFP purposes	Rowan would likely seek appellate review	Court must certify objectively whether any appeal is nonfrivolous	Court recommends certifying that any appeal would not be taken in good faith; IFP on appeal denied

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain factual allegations plausibly suggesting entitlement to relief)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Rule 8 requires more than conclusory statements; plausible claim required)
Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468 (standard for screening IFP complaints under § 1915 and applying Twombly/Iqbal)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (courts may dismiss legally or factually frivolous IFP complaints)
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (elements of § 1983: state action and deprivation of federal rights)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (good-faith standard for in forma pauperis appeals)
Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048 (inconsistent to dismiss complaint as meritless yet allow IFP appeal)