PITTS v. MACON WATER AUTHORITY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
SHATORIA K. PITTS, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
: 	CASE NO.
v. 	: 	5:25-CV-347 (CAR)
:
MACON WATER AUTHORITY, 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
____________________________________
ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT
Currently before the Court are pro se Plaintiff Shatoria K. Pitts’s Amended
Complaint [Doc. 7] and Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [Doc. 8] she filed
after this Court ordered Plaintiff to recast her Complaint upon the Court’s frivolity
review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
[Doc. 8] and therefore accepts her second Amended Complaint [Doc. 8-1] as the operative
complaint in this action (“Second Amended Complaint”). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s
Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court finds it fails to
state a claim for relief. Thus, for the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s case is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BACKGROUND
On December 5, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (“IFP”) but found Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to establish this Court
had jurisdiction over this case or to state any viable claim for relief and allowed Plaintiff
Case 5:25-cv-00347-CAR Document 9 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 5

the opportunity to file a recast complaint.1 Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint,
but it also fails to state a claim for relief.
In her Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges she maintained water service
through Defendant Macon Water Authority and submitted “a payment instrument” in
June 2025.2 Defendant accepted and processed her payment, but “[d]espite this …
Defendant continued to issue billing statements.”3 Defendant terminated her water
service on August 14, 2025, “without adequate notice or opportunity to contest the
action.”4 Thus, Plaintiff made an additional payment on August 16th “under protest.”5
Plaintiff was evicted from her residence on September 3, 2025, billing statements from
Defendant continued, and “these events caused financial and emotional harm.”6
Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of her procedural due process rights, “civil
rights,” “property interest deprivation,” and “contract and payment dispute.”7
ANALYSIS
Because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, the Court is required to screen her Complaint
and must sua sponte dismiss the complaint or portion thereof which (1) is found to be
frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks
1 Order on Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Doc. 6].
2 Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 8-1, p. 2].
3 Id.
4 Id.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id. at pp. 2-7.
Case 5:25-cv-00347-CAR Document 9 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 5

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.8 Title 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) “accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a 	claim 	based 	on an
indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the
complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are
clearly baseless.”9 A complaint is “frivolous” if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or
in fact.”10 Dismissals on this ground should only be ordered when legal theories are
“indisputably meritless,”11 or when the claims rely on factual allegations that are “clearly
baseless.”12 “Clearly baseless” factual allegations include those that are “fanciful,”
“fantastic,” and “delusional.”13 Although pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent
standard and construed liberally,14 a pro se complaint must satisfy the basic pleading
requirements of applicable law and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.15
Plaintiff fails to plausibly state any claim for relief. Plaintiff first asserts a violation
of her procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. She alleges she
had a protected property interest in her water service, and her “water service was
terminated without adequate procedural safeguards.”16 To state a procedural due process
8 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b).
9 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992).
13 Id. at 32-33 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 327).
14 See Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003).
15 See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989).
16 Second Am. Compl., p. 3.
Case 5:25-cv-00347-CAR Document 9 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 5

claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must plead (1) a deprivation of a constitutionally-
protected liberty or property interest; (2) state action; and (3) constitutionally inadequate
process.17 Here, Plaintiff has failed 	to allege Defendant provided constitutionally
inadequate process. Her Amended Complaint contains only the threadbare recital that
“water service was terminated without adequate procedural safeguards” but fails to
explain how the process was inadequate or the role Defendant played in the process.
Likewise, 	Plaintiff’s 	claims 	for 	“civil 	rights 	violation,” 	“property 	interest
deprivation,” and “contract and payment dispute” are vague recitals that Defendant’s
“conduct deprived Plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution”;18 her property
“interest was deprived without constitutionally sufficient procedures”;19 and “continued
billing occurred despite payment.”20 Plaintiff identifies no discernable cause of action.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend [Doc.
8] and therefore accepts her Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 8-1] as the operative
complaint in this action. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court finds it fails to state a claim for relief, and thus
Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
17 See Arrington v. Helms, 438 F.3d 1336, 1347-48 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
18 Second Am. Compl, p. 3.
19 Id. at p. 4.
20 Id. at p. 5.
Case 5:25-cv-00347-CAR Document 9 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 5

SO ORDERED, this 9th day of October, 2026.
s/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 5:25-cv-00347-CAR Document 9 Filed 10/09/26 Page 5 of 5