Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_24-cv-01685/USCOURTS-alnd-5_24-cv-01685-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

83UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM COONROD,

Plaintiff,

v.

GREG S., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 5:24-cv-1685-LCB

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is William Coonrod’s motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, in which he seeks leave to file this lawsuit without the prepayment of fees 

and costs. (Doc. 2). Coonrod’s affidavit of indigency supports a finding that his 

motion is due to be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, for the 

reasons that follow, this case is due to be dismissed without prejudice under § 

1915(e)(2)(B), because his complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be 

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii).

Coonrod, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a complaint using 

the Court’s standard form entitled “Complaint for a Civil Case.” Coonrod did not 

FILED

 2024 Dec-10 PM 02:44

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:24-cv-01685-LCB Document 4 Filed 12/10/24 Page 1 of 6
2

check any of the boxes under the section entitled “Basis for Jurisdiction,” but did list 

the defendants as employees of the Veterans Affairs Administration. (Doc. 1 at 3). 

Coonrod’s complaint consists of an attached letter addressed to “Birmingham 

VAMC ATTN: Dr. Oladipo Kukoyi.” Id. at 8. The letter is difficult to follow but 

appears to detail Mr. Coonrod’s negative experience in attempting to get mental 

health care at the VA hospital in Birmingham. He is clearly frustrated by his 

interactions with various staff members and medical professionals at the VA, but 

nowhere in the letter does he lay out any causes of action or provide any facts that 

would support a cognizable legal theory. In the “Statement of Claim” section of the 

complaint form, Coorod wrote:

Retaliation that I file complaints and stop mental therapy could have 

just said you was not going to approve any more for what ever reason 

would been better than having me in a bad mental state of mind keep 

thinking why I can not get help when now I know better over 23 months 

of mental abuse for no reason.

Id. at 5. In the section directing the plaintiff to describe the relief they are seeking, 

Coonrod stated: “Policy for mental therapy to know how to get quality of mental 

health treatment approve. Information given to Veterans Affairs for compensation 

claim file for PTSD claim.” Id. As in his attachment, Coonrod did not specify any 

particular cause of action, nor did he cite any statute under which he is seeking relief.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires a federal court to dismiss an action filed 

by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) 

Case 5:24-cv-01685-LCB Document 4 Filed 12/10/24 Page 2 of 6
3

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks monetary 

damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The purpose of section 

1915(e)(2) is “to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources 

upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the 

costs of bringing suit and because of the threat of sanctions for bringing vexatious 

suits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 

324 (1989). A dismissal pursuant to section 1915(e)(2) may be issued sua sponte by 

the court prior to the issuance of process so as to spare prospective defendants the 

inconvenience and expense of answering frivolous complaints. Id.

Dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted is governed by the same standard as dismissal under Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 

1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). To state a claim for relief, a pleading must contain: 

“(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction ... (2) a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; 

and (3) a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). As such, “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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell 

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “[T]o state a plausible claim for

relief, the plaintiff[ ] must plead ‘factual content that allows the court to draw the 

Case 5:24-cv-01685-LCB Document 4 Filed 12/10/24 Page 3 of 6
4

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” 

Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1268 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678).

The Court recognizes that Coonrod is appearing pro se, that filings by pro se 

litigants are to be more leniently construed, and that such litigants are “held to less 

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 

551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Evans v. 

Ga. Reg'l Hosp., 850 F.3d 1248, 1253 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Tannenbaum v. United 

States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)). However, notions of leniency do not 

excuse a plaintiff from compliance with threshold requirements of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1998). Nor 

does this leniency require or allow courts “to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading 

[by a pro se litigant] in order to sustain an action.” GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. of 

Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, a district court 

is not required to grant leave to amend when an amendment would prove futile. L.S. 

ex rel. Hernandez v. Peterson, 982 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2020) (“Leave to 

amend would be futile if an amended complaint would still fail at the motion-todismiss or summary-judgment stage.”) (citing Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 

1310 (11th Cir. 2007)).

Case 5:24-cv-01685-LCB Document 4 Filed 12/10/24 Page 4 of 6
5

As noted above, Coonrod’s complaint consists of nothing more than a letter 

detailing his frustrations in attempting to obtain treatment at the VA. Even 

construing his filing liberally, as the Court is required to do with pro se pleadings, 

the Court can discern no facts that would support a cause of action against the 

defendants. As such, Coonrod has failed to state a claim for which relief can be 

granted.

Coonrod also checked a box on his in forma pauperis affidavit indicating his

desire to be appointed counsel. (Doc. 2 at 3). The Court notes that on the last page 

of the same form, Coonrod indicated that he had not attempted to talk with an 

attorney about his case. Nevertheless, the Court does not find cause to appoint 

counsel in this case.

“A civil litigant ... has no absolute constitutional right to the appointment of 

counsel.” Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 1992)(internal citations 

and quotations omitted). A court, however, has broad discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(1) to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant. Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 

1320 (11th Cir. 1999). “The appointment of counsel is ... a privilege that is justified 

only by exceptional circumstances ...” Dean, 951 F.2d at 1216 (internal citations 

and quotations omitted)(emphasis added). In deciding whether legal counsel should 

be appointed, courts should consider, among other things, the following factors: (1) 

whether the factual and legal issues are novel or complex; (2) the plaintiff's ability 

Case 5:24-cv-01685-LCB Document 4 Filed 12/10/24 Page 5 of 6
6

to adequately present his case; (3) the plaintiff's position to adequately investigate 

his case; and (4) whether the evidence will consist in large part of conflicting 

testimony so as to require skill in the presentation of evidence and in cross 

examination. Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 

691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982). Having reviewed Coonrod’s complaint, the Court 

does not find that any of these exceptional circumstances exist.

For the foregoing reasons, Coonrod’s motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (Doc. 3) is GRANTED insofar as it seeks waiver of the filing fee but is 

DENIED insofar as it requests the appointment of counsel. However, this case is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under § 1915(e)(2)(B) because the 

complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Clerk is 

directed to close this case.

DONE and ORDERED December 10, 2024.

 _________________________________

 LILES C. BURKE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:24-cv-01685-LCB Document 4 Filed 12/10/24 Page 6 of 6