[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-15226

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00095-AT

ROBERT L. REHBERGER, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HENRY COUNTY, GEORGIA, 

THE STATE OF GEORGIA, 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(August 18, 2014)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-15226 Date Filed: 08/18/2014 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Robert Rehberger, a lawyer, was convicted in the Superior Court of Henry 

County, Georgia, of false imprisonment, sexual battery and simple battery and 

sentenced to four years in prison. He was thereafter disbarred from the practice of 

law, see Rehberger v. State, 502 S.E.2d 222 (GA. 1998), and he filed a number of 

law suits, including the one now before us against Henry County, the State of 

Georgia, the United States of America and the General Counsel of the State Bar of 

Georgia. According to his complaint, these defendants denied him effective and 

meaningful access to the courts and violated his due process rights by obtaining 

allegedly invalid state court convictions against him and barring him from the 

practice of law. The district court dismissed Rehberger’s complaint as frivolous. 

He appeals the dismissal, proceeding pro se and informa pauperis (“IFP”).

Section 1915(e) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code provides that any case 

proceeding IFP shall be dismissed, at the court’s discretion, at any time if it is 

frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 

(11th Cir. 2002). A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit in fact or law. 

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 

(1992). Moreover, “conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts, or 

legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.” Oxford Asset 

Mgmt., Ltd. v. Jaharis, 297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002).

Case: 13-15226 Date Filed: 08/18/2014 Page: 2 of 4 
3

Adequate, effective, and meaningful access to the courts is a constitutional 

right, grounded in the First Amendment, the Article IV Privileges and Immunities 

Clause, the Fifth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. Chappell v. Rich, 

340 F.3d 1279, 1282 (11th Cir. 2003). In order to prevail on a claim that this right 

has been violated, a plaintiff must identify a nonfrivolous and arguable underlying 

claim—whether anticipated or lost—in his complaint. Christopher v. Harbury, 

536 U.S. 403, 415, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 2186-87, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002). 

If a plaintiff seeks damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or 

imprisonment, the conviction or sentence has not yet been invalidated, and 

judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of the 

conviction, the complaint must be dismissed. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 

486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2372, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). 

As an initial matter, Rehberger’s argument that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) applies 

only to claims by prisoners is meritless, as the statute by its terms applies to all IFP 

proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The district court did not abuse its 

discretion in dismissing Rehberger’s complaint as frivolous. Rehberger’s claims 

consist of conclusory allegations untied to the specific parties he identifies as 

defendants, lack factual support, and are without arguable legal merit. See Denton, 

504 U.S. at 32-33, 112 S.Ct. at 1733; Oxford Asset Mgmt., Ltd., 297 F.3d at 1188. 

Rehberger has not identified an underlying claim that is nonfrivolous and arguable 

Case: 13-15226 Date Filed: 08/18/2014 Page: 3 of 4 
4

or any instance in which he has been denied the opportunity to present claims 

before the courts. See Christopher, 536 U.S. at 415, 122 S.Ct. at 2186-87. In 

addition, to the extent he challenges his convictions, judgment in his favor would 

necessarily imply the invalidity of his convictions and thus his claims are barred by 

Heck. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. at 2372. Rehberger brings his 

claims against the State defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute of 

limitations for § 1983 claims arising in Georgia is two years. Brown v. Ga. Dep’t 

of Revenue, 881 F.2d 1018, 1022 n.10 (11th Cir. 1989). All of the actions 

Rehberger complains of occurred in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s (between 

1997 and 2010, at the latest), well outside the two-year limitations period. See 

Brown, 881 F.2d at 1022 n.10. Hence, the § 1983 claims are time-barred.

AFFIRMED.

 

 

Case: 13-15226 Date Filed: 08/18/2014 Page: 4 of 4