IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CLIFFORD S. MARTIN, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-00075-CG-B

:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT :

OF AGRICULTURE, et al., :

:

 Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed a self-styled 

complaint and a motion to proceed as a pauper.1 (Docs. 1, 2). 

Plaintiff’s motion was referred to the undersigned for 

appropriate action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 

Local Rule 72.2(c)(1). Local Rule 72.2(c)(1) provides for the 

automatic referral of a non-dispositive pretrial matter, such as 

Plaintiff’s motion, to a magistrate judge. After careful 

consideration of the matters contained in the Court’s file in 

this action, it is the undersigned’s recommendation that this 

action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. 

 1 Although Martin initially sought to include several individuals 

as Plaintiffs in this action, he is the sole Plaintiff. See 

Court Order dated February 25, 2015 Order. (Doc. 3 at 4). 

Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to modify the docket sheet so 

that Martin is listed as the sole Plaintiff in this action. 

Case 2:15-cv-00075-CG-B Document 9 Filed 08/24/15 Page 1 of 15
2

I. Consolidated Amended Complaint. (Docs. 4,5,7). 

After the Court reviewed Martin’s complaint (Doc. 1) and 

motion (Doc. 2), the Court ordered him to file his motion on the 

Court’s form for a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees 

and to file an amended complaint that complied with the pleading 

directives contained in the Court’s order. (Doc. 3). Martin 

filed an amended complaint (Doc. 4), a motion to proceed on 

plausibility, factual content (Doc. 5), a motion to proceed 

without prepayment of fees (Doc. 6) and a motion to amend 

complaint (Doc. 7). His amended complaint, motion to proceed on 

plausibility, factual content and motion to amend complaint are 

all being treated as a consolidated amended complaint.2 (Docs. 

4, 5, 7). Because Martin is seeking to proceed without 

prepayment of fees, this Court is required to screen the 

consolidated amended complaint. Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 

1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2002) (applying to non-prisoner actions § 

1915(e), which requires the dismissal of actions that are 

frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim, or sue an immune 

party for damages).

 

2 Martin’s consolidated amended complaint will supersede his 

original complaint. Fritz v. Standard Life Ins. Co., 676 F.2d 

1356, 1358 (11th Cir. 1982).

Case 2:15-cv-00075-CG-B Document 9 Filed 08/24/15 Page 2 of 15
3

Turning to Martin’s consolidated amended complaint, he 

identifies as Defendants, the United States Department of 

Agriculture (“USDA”), Allen Bowen with R.D.A., and Randal Corral 

with R.D.A. (Doc. 4 at 1). Martin has not advised the Court of 

what the acronym “R.D.A.” represents although he does mention 

that it is a “federal mandate.” (Id.). In the style of hid 

motion to proceed on plausibility, factual content, Martin’s 

mentions “Rural Development.” (Doc. 5 at 1). In the Court’s 

research, various meanings were found for the R.D.A. acronym. 

Nevertheless, the Court did find a case that referred to the 

Rural Development Association. James Island Public Serv. Dist. 

v. City of Charleston, S.C., 249 F.3d 323, 326 (4th Cir. 2001) 

(referencing the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 7 

U.S.C. § 1926(b)(1994)). 

Due to the brevity of Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 

4), the allegations are set out in their entirety below.

COMPLAINT

 The undersigned allege Constitution 

amendment one protected right violation of 

free speech. Sought pursuant to U.S.C.A. 

Constitution Amendment One.

CONCISE BRIEF FACTS

The U.S.D.A is Federal mandate to not fund 

or license any application before review 106 

has been put through process.

Case 2:15-cv-00075-CG-B Document 9 Filed 08/24/15 Page 3 of 15
4

The R.D.A. is Federal mandate to not fund or 

license any application before review 106 

has been put through process.

The U.S.D.A. did fund/license an application 

before Review 106 application process.

The R.D.A. did fund/license an application 

before Review 106 application process.

Review 106 “requires the “head of any 

Federal Agency” to comply with its 

provisions.

Neither U.S.D.A.or R.D.A. “head” comply with 

Review 106.

SHORT STATEMENT SHOWING GROUNDS FOR JURISICTION

 Jurisdiction is sought pursuant to Article 

III U.S. Constitution, a U.S. District 

Court, having original Jurisdiction and 

venue.

SHORT STATEMENT SHOWING PLEADER IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF

The pleader is entitled to relief 

upon the ground pursuant to Constitution 

Amendment one free speech violation.

RELIEF SOUGHT

 One-hundred percent (100%) of the Sheriff 

p.c. Percy Columbus “Lummie” Jenkins, 

Sheriff Prince Arnold Pinnacle jail ground. 

The jail ground that constitute more than 78 

years, of law enforcement wilcox history.

 A “soaring Monolith” Obleisk, etched n 

rock and written n rock to the murderees, 

and heinous murdering lawmen of Wilcox 

Alabama. Inscribed to Mr. Robert Smiley of 

Coy Alabama, Mr Will Martin Sr. of Camden, 

both murdered by Edmund Tate sheriff deputy 

of Coy Alabama, Mr. Leo Hill, who was hung 

Case 2:15-cv-00075-CG-B Document 9 Filed 08/24/15 Page 4 of 15
5

by sheriff deputies, Mr Ross (Sugar Duke) 

Pledger who was murdered by Robert Rogers 

Camden police officer, Mr Stanley Perkins of 

Pine Hill, who was murdered by Hicks a Pine 

Hill policeman, Mr. Herbert Cole of Camden, 

who was murdered by a Camden policeman, etc. 

etc.

 A monetary sum to awarded 2 the plaintiff 

significant to compensate for the loss of 

Aesthetic, Architectural, Character, 

Culture, Economic, Education, Energy, 

Heritage and Inspiration which r benefits 

that were stolen via free speech violation.

(Doc. 4 at 1-2).

As noted supra, along with Martin’s amended complaint (Doc. 

4), he filed a motion to proceed on plausibility, factual 

content (Doc. 5), the substance of which is also set out below. 

 The defense did violate a due process 

public law, mandated for public involvement 

free speech (expression), law 89-665.

 § Initiation of this sub-part is 

mandatory!

 § (e) Public Involvement. This sub-part 

allows for free speech (expression) 

Mandatory!

 The defense both are required to implement 

law sub-part. Because both defendant did not 

conform to the sub-part, the plaintiff 

constitution first amendment protected right

is violated. To avoid dismissal for failure 

to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted, the allegations must show 

plausibility. Bell Atlantic Corp., v, 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 

1966, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

Case 2:15-cv-00075-CG-B Document 9 Filed 08/24/15 Page 5 of 15
6

 “A claim has facial plausibility when the 

plaintiff pleads factual conttent that 

allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for 

the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Igbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948, 173 

L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)

 The pleader plain statement with factual 

content bears the burden of proof the 

plaintiff is entitled to relief above the 

speculative level. That is, “[F]actual 

allegations must be enough to raise a right 

to relief above the speculative level” and 

must be a “plain statement’ possess[ing] 

enough heft to ‘sho[w] the pleader is 

entitled to relief” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

555, 557, 27 S.Ct. 

 Public law 89-665 applies to Federal 

agencies. Section 106 of the public law

violated that prompted free speech violation 

requires the “head of any Federal Agency to 

comply with its provisions. Cabinet Level 

Departments, such as the Department of the 

Interior, or the Department of Housing and 

Urban Developement; their sub agencies, such 

as the army Corp of Engineers, or the Forest 

Service of the Department of Agriculture; 

and independent agencies, such as the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, must 

all comply. Routinely responsibility for 

compliance is delegated from agency head to 

regional officials and project managers. 

Section 106 applies only to Federal 

agencies, not to state or local governments 

unless they are acting as the Federal 

agency” under a specific Federal law. 42 

U.S.C. § 5304 (1994); 16 U.S.C. § 470w(7)(D) 

(1994).

(Doc. 5 at 1-3).

Case 2:15-cv-00075-CG-B Document 9 Filed 08/24/15 Page 6 of 15
7

Additionally, Martin has filed a motion to amend his 

complaint, which provides as follows: “This motion is to amend 

the ORDER (Doc. 3). This claim is sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

Section 1343 as amended.” (Doc. 7).

II. Analysis.

A. Jurisdictional Pleading Requirements.

In a federal action, it is incumbent on a plaintiff to 

state in his complaint the basis for the federal district 

court’s subject matter jurisdiction. FED.R.CIV.P. 8(a)(1). In 

the complaint, a plaintiff must plead “a short and plain 

statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction 

depends.” Id. And, the complaint’s facts must affirmatively 

demonstrate the existence of the Court’s subject matter 

jurisdiction. Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 

1994). Because a federal court’s jurisdiction is limited, “once 

a court determines that there has been no [jurisdictional] grant 

that covers a particular case, the court’s sole remaining act is 

to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.” Morrison v. 

Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2000). 

B. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

In the consolidated amended complaint, Martin references 28 

U.S.C. § 1343 (Doc. 7), federal law, a federal agency, the 

United States Constitution, and the First Amendment. Section 

Case 2:15-cv-00075-CG-B Document 9 Filed 08/24/15 Page 7 of 15
8

1343 is the only jurisdictional statute mentioned in the 

consolidated amended complaint; however, Martin has not 

specified the subpart of § 1343 that he claims provides a 

jurisdictional basis for his claims. As best the Court can 

discern, the subparts that are most consistent with Martin’s 

allegations are (a)(3) and (4), which provide:

(a) The district courts shall have original 

jurisdiction of any civil action authorized 

by law to be commenced by any person:

. . . .

(3) To redress the deprivation, under color 

of any State law, statute, ordinance, 

regulation, custom or usage, of any right, 

privilege or immunity secured by the 

Constitution of the United States or by any 

Act of Congress providing for equal rights 

of citizens or of all persons within the 

jurisdiction of the United States;

(4) To recover damages or to secure 

equitable or other relief under any Act of 

Congress providing for the protection of 

civil rights, including the right to vote.

. . . .

28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3)&(4). Section 1343(a)(3) serves as the 

jurisdictional basis for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 441 U.S. 600,

615, 99 S.Ct. 1905, 1915, 60 L.Ed.2d 508 (1979) (“[T]his Court[] 

recogni[zes] that the [§1343(a)(3)] is the jurisdictional 

Case 2:15-cv-00075-CG-B Document 9 Filed 08/24/15 Page 8 of 15
9

counterpart of [§ 1983].”); Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 1107, 

1112 n.3 (5th Cir. July 30, 1981)(same);3 Ortega v. Schramm, 922 

F.2d 684, 688 (11th Cir. 1991) (Section 1343 authorizes “federal 

courts to entertain section 1983 claims”). However, because 

Martin has not alleged that any defendant acted under color of 

state law, subpart (a)(3) does not provide a jurisdictional 

basis for this action. 

With respect to § 1343(a)(4), “the Congress that enacted § 

1343(4)4 was primarily concerned with providing jurisdiction for 

actions dealing with the civil rights enumerated in 42 U.S.C. § 

1985, and most notably the right to vote.” Chapman, 441 U.S. at 

620-01, 99 S.Ct. at 1917-18 (§ 1343(a)(4)’s jurisdiction “is not 

limited to actions against state officials or individuals acting 

under color of state law.”). Section 1343(a)(4) is “aimed at 

questions of personal liberty rather than property matters[.]” 

McCall v. Shapiro, 416 F.2d 246, 250 (2d Cir. 1969). 

 3

 The Eleventh Circuit in Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 

1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), adopted as binding precedent the 

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the 

close of business on September 30, 1981.

4

 Amendments to § 1343 in 1979 designated the statute’s existing 

provisions into subpart (a). See 28 U.S.C. § 1343; Golden State 

Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, 493 U.S. 103, 107 n.4, 110 

S.Ct. 444, 449 n.4, 107 L.Ed.2d 420(1989).

Case 2:15-cv-00075-CG-B Document 9 Filed 08/24/15 Page 9 of 15
10

“Section 1343 . . . confer[s] jurisdiction upon the 

District Court to entertain the constitutional claim if it [i]s 

of sufficient substance to support federal jurisdiction.” 

Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1378, 39 

L.Ed.2d 577 (1974). However, “[f]ederal courts are without 

power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if 

they are ‘so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely 

devoid of merit.’” Id. at 536, 94 S.Ct. at 1379. A federal 

“‘question, may be plainly unsubstantial, either because it is 

‘obviously without merit’ or because ‘its unsoundness so clearly 

results from the previous decisions of this court . . . to 

foreclose the subject. . . .’” Id. (citations omitted). A 

court’s subject matter jurisdiction does not extend to a cause 

of action that is not valid, as compared to one that is arguable. 

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89, 

118 S.Ct. 1003, 1010, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (“Dismissal for 

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because of the inadequacy of 

the federal claim is proper only when the claim is ‘so 

insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of 

this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to 

involve a federal controversy.’”) (citations omitted). 

Because Martin is proceeding pro se and appears not to be 

an attorney, his allegations are given a liberal construction. 

Case 2:15-cv-00075-CG-B Document 9 Filed 08/24/15 Page 10 of 15
11

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-596, 30 

L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). And, the Court is treating his allegations 

as true. Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 1529 (11th Cir. 

1990). However, the Court does not have “license . . . to 

rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading [by a pro se litigant] 

in order to sustain an action[.]” GJR Investments v. County of 

Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled 

on other grounds by Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). 

In pleading a complaint in federal court, Rule 8(a) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also requires that a complaint 

contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964, 167 L.Ed.2d 

929 (2007); FED.R.CIV.P. 8(a)(2). This statement must contain 

facts that allow the Court to reasonably conclude that the 

plaintiff’s claim is facially plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). 

The plaintiff’s factual allegations must be sufficient “to raise 

a right to relief above the speculative level[.]” Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1965. Even though detailed factual 

allegations are not required, Rule 8 “demands more than an 

unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 127 S.Ct. at 1949. Moreover, it will 

Case 2:15-cv-00075-CG-B Document 9 Filed 08/24/15 Page 11 of 15
12

not suffice to plead merely “labels and conclusions” or “a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1965.

In the present action, Martin claims Defendants violated 

his free speech rights, but he does not allege facts that 

reflect a violation of his free speech rights. He references 

“Review 106,” which the Court was unable to find, particularly 

in conjunction with a federal statute except for Plaintiff’s 

prior action, Martin v. Alabama Historical Comm’n, No. 2:13-CV648-MEF-WC, 2014 WL 28850 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 2, 2014) 

(unpublished), which was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. 5 Martin also 

refers to Public Law 89-665, which was codified in 16 U.S.C. § 

 5

 Previously, Plaintiff brought other actions, to-wit: Martin v. 

City of Camden, 2:92-cv-00393-CB-M (S.D. Ala. Apr. 18, 1994) 

(defendants granted summary judgment); Martin v. Teledyne, 2:95-

cv-00464-RV-M (S.D. Ala. Apr. 30, 1996) (defendants granted 

summary judgment); Martin v. Norment/Compudyne, 2:01-cv-01522-

MHT-VPM (M.D. Ala. Aug. 8, 2003 (defendants granted summary 

judgment in Title VII case); Martin v. City of Camden, 2:04-cv00406-MEF-SRW (M.D. Ala. Sept. 28, 2006) (settlement in FSLA 

class action); Martin v. Kelly Aerospace, 2:09-cv-00513-WKW-SRW 

(M.D. Ala. June 16, 2010) (settlement of job-terminationrelated claims); Martin v. Wilcox County, Ala., 2:13-cv-00572-

WS-B (S.D. Ala. Mar. 21, 2014) (dismissal pursuant to § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim under the 

National Historic Preservation Act); and Martin v. The Alabama 

Historical Comm’n, 2:13-cv-00648-MEF-WC (M.D. Ala. Jan. 2, 2014) 

(dismissal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state 

a claim under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969).

Case 2:15-cv-00075-CG-B Document 9 Filed 08/24/15 Page 12 of 15
13

470 (National Historic Preservation), parts of which have been 

repealed or transferred. And, he refers to 42 U.S.C. § 5304, a 

lengthy statute concerning community development. However, he 

has provided no facts to support a claim under any of these 

legal provisions. 

Moreover, Martin’s allegations do not present a coherent 

claim. The allegations nearest to conveying concrete facts are 

found in the section titled “Relief Sought.” (Doc. 4 at 2). 

Nonetheless, this disjointed information is not organized so as 

to convey an intelligible claim, much less a claim demonstrating 

a violation of his civil rights. More important, the 

allegations do not convey an injury to Martin connected to a 

specific act from each Defendant. Indeed, based on Martin’s 

allegations, the Court cannot discern a violation of his civil 

rights on which its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4) 

could be based.

Given the absence of a plain statement of a cogent claim 

for a violation of Martin’s civil rights, the Court finds that 

the claims in his consolidated amended complaint are 

insubstantial so as to preclude this Court from exercising its 

jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4).

Case 2:15-cv-00075-CG-B Document 9 Filed 08/24/15 Page 13 of 15
14

 

III. Conclusion.

Based upon the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that 

this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. Blankenship v. Gulf Power Co., 551 F. 

App’x 468, 471 n.2 (11th Cir. 2013)(finding that patently 

frivolous claims were due to be dismissed without prejudice for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction, not for failure to state a 

claim).

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS 

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects 

to this recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen 

(14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific 

written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b); S.D. ALA. L.R. 72.4. The parties 

should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party 

failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or 

recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives 

the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order 

based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the 

party was informed of the time period for objecting and the 

Case 2:15-cv-00075-CG-B Document 9 Filed 08/24/15 Page 14 of 15
15

consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of 

a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for 

plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. 

R. 3-1. In order to be specific, an objection must identify the 

specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, 

state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed 

determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by 

reference or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge 

is not specific. 

DONE this the 24th day of August, 2015.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS_____ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00075-CG-B Document 9 Filed 08/24/15 Page 15 of 15