Ricky Lamar Hogan v. The State of Georgia, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No. 20-11278
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-00244-AT

RICKY LAMAR HOGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE STATE OF GEORGIA,
a governmental municipality corporation
continuous criminal enterprise through
Racketeering activities, being sued individually and
within its official capacity as a state of Georgia,
Government Municipality Corporation and etc.,
MEADOWS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
DR. JOSEPH PAUL GILES, MD,

Defendants-Appellees.

Case: 20-11278 Date Filed: 07/20/2020 Page: 1 of 3

2

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(July 20, 2020)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, GRANT and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Ricky Hogan, a Georgia prisoner, appeals pro se the sua sponte dismissal of
his complaint that the State of Georgia and over 30 public officials and employees
conspired to implant an experimental tracking device in his body in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hogan argues that the district court abused
its discretion when it denied his motion for a preliminary injunction without an
evidentiary hearing, failed to grant him leave to amend his complaint, and
dismissed his complaint as frivolous. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. Hogan alleged no facts that
would support his “wildly implausible” claim that he had been implanted with an
experimental tracking device or that the defendants had conspired to implant such
a device. Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008). Hogan’s
complaint of a vast conspiracy to engage in illegal medical experimentation is
patently frivolous. The district court committed no error when it denied Hogan’s
Case: 20-11278 Date Filed: 07/20/2020 Page: 2 of 3

3

motion for a preliminary injunction without an evidentiary hearing and dismissed
his complaint without granting him leave to amend.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 20-11278 Date Filed: 07/20/2020 Page: 3 of 3