Larry L. Thomas, Jr. v. Judge James L. Prine, et al.

Thomas v. Prine · United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division · February 13, 2026 · No. 7:25-cv-13-WLS-ALS

Summary

In this Order and Recommendation, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia grants Larry L. Thomas, Jr.’s motion to file a Second Amended Complaint. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice as frivolous, for failure to comply with prior court instructions, and under the court’s inherent authority, while recommending denial of several pending motions. The recommendation is based primarily on the plaintiff’s extensive conspiracy allegations, which the court finds patently implausible and intertwined with his other claims.

Holdings

  1. Leave to file the Second Amended Complaint was granted, and the Second Amended Complaint became the operative pleading because an amended pleading generally supersedes and abandons the former pleading.
  2. The Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice as frivolous because its broad conspiracy allegations were fanciful, fantastic, irrational, and delusional, and the allegations were so interwoven that the court could not separate them from any potentially viable claims.
  3. Dismissal without prejudice was recommended under the court's inherent authority and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Plaintiff intentionally disregarded prior orders and instructions concerning the filing of frivolous conspiracy allegations.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to file the Second Amended Complaint and whether that pleading superseded the Recast Complaint.
  2. Whether the Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed at preliminary screening as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e).
  3. Whether dismissal was also warranted under the court's inherent authority and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Plaintiff disregarded prior orders and instructions.
  4. Whether Plaintiff's motions for financial assistance with discovery, leave to supplement, and a writ of mandamus should be denied.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (21)

  • Pintando v. Miami-Dade Hous. Agency, 501 F.3d 1241, 1243 (11th Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Carmichael v. United States, 966 F.3d 1250, 1258 (11th Cir. 2020)(followed)
  • Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Daker v. Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2021)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Hale v. Tallapoosa Cnty., 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir. 1995)(followed)
  • Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1176-77 (11th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Wade v. McDade, 106 F.4th 1251, 1255 (11th Cir. 2024) (en banc)(cited)
  • Porter v. Governor, 667 F. App'x 766, 767 (11th Cir. 2016)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 21.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…