Pro se inmate’s request to amend his complaint that he was framed with false testimony from an officer to get search warrant, corroborated by action by the state’s attorney, stated enough to get over the pleading hurdle of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Wooden v. Armenteros, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33817 (11th Cir. Dec. 3, 2018)*:
But Wooden did not allege that a cocaine sale in fact occurred, even if he summarized Armenteros’s statements to that effect. So we cannot accept the truth of that fact. And Wooden’s allegations otherwise reflect that he was not present at the residence during the purported cocaine sale and that Armenteros did not actually observe him at the residence. In addition, in his objections to the R&R, Armenteros asserted that “[t]he State Attorney found Det. Armenteros lied in his affidavit and later change[d] his story during deposition.” In the light most favorable to Wooden, these allegations support Wooden’s claim that Armenteros intentionally lied in the warrant affidavit in order to frame Wooden for selling cocaine. They also make it conceivable that Armenteros falsified more than just the identity of the dealer, and that Armenteros subsequently arrested Wooden despite knowing that he did not sell cocaine to a confidential informant. In light of the facts alleged both in Wooden’s complaint and his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and erring on the side of generosity to a pro se plaintiff, we cannot say that it would be futile to allow “at least one chance to amend the complaint before the district court dismisses the action with prejudice.” See Bank, 928 F.2d at 1112.