Robert L. Rehberger v. Henry County, Geoergia

Case: 13-15226 Date Filed: 08/18/2014 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 2 of 4
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).
2
Case: 13-15226 Date Filed: 08/18/2014 Page: 3 of 4
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
3
Case: 13-15226 Date Filed: 08/18/2014 Page: 4 of 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.
4