Proceeding pro se and seeking pauper status, Michael Morgan attempted to file a complaint in superior court alleging that Aaron Rents denied him credit because of race and falsely advertised its credit terms. The trial court concluded that the pleading showed no justiciable issue and directed the clerk not to file it. The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed and directed the clerk to file the complaint. Applying the liberal standard used for pro se pleadings, the court held that a complaint need not be perfect or identify every issue with particularity; it need only place the defendant on notice of a claim. Morgan’s difficult-to-follow allegations could potentially state a claim under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act’s prohibition on racial credit discrimination and Georgia’s false-advertising statute. The appellate court emphasized that the filing-stage question was not whether Morgan would ultimately prevail, but whether it was certain that he could prove no set of facts entitling him to relief. The court also denied Morgan’s contempt motion against the appellee because the action had not yet been filed, the appellee had not been served, and no attorney appeared for that party. Judgment reversed and remanded with direction.