WOODBERRY v. MICHAEL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

MANDRAIL JAMAR WOODBURY, |)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

V. ) 1:24CV93

)

JUDGE MICHAEL, et al., )

)

Defendant(s). )

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner convicted in this Court in case 1:17CR394-1 of being a

felon in possession of a firearm, submitted a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The form of the Complaint is such that serious flaws make it impossible to further process

the Complaint. The problems are:

1. Plaintiff's claims are unclear in multiple ways. His Complaint uses legal terms

such as false arrest, the Fourth Amendment (presumably of the United States

Constitution), and fruit of the poisonous tree, but contains no facts related to

his arrest or any search related to the arrest. Given that the arrest occurred in

2017, it appears that any claims related to the arrest would be barred by the

three-year statute of limitations in any event. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S.

261, 276-80 (1985) (holding that, in section 1983 actions, state statute of

limitations for personal injury applies); Brooks v. City of Winston Salem, 85

F.3d 178, 181 (4th Cir. 1996) (applying North Carolina’s three-year statute of

limitations for personal injuries to section 1983 actions); N.C. Gen. Stat § 1-52

(establishing three-year statute of limitations for personal injury). The

Complaint also references the First and Eighth Amendments, but sets out no

facts related to possible violations of those Amendments. In fact, the

Complaint contains no substantive factual allegations at all related to three of

the named Defendants, C. Hall, M. Odom, and Corporal Toby. Instead, the

facts listed mainly accuse a state court judge and district attorney of

mishandling a state criminal prosecution that was based on events related to

Plaintiffs federal prosecution. However, judges have absolute immunity for

their judicial actions, Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), and

prosecutors also have absolute immunity for their participation in the judicial

process, Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993). It is not clear how

Plaintiff can raise a claim against these Defendants given their immunity.

Plaintiff also seeks to have his federal charges dismissed or his sentence

reduced. He cannot receive this relief in a lawsuit under § 1983. If he seeks

to attack his federal conviction and sentence, he must do so in his federal

criminal case by filing a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He must also receive

permission to file such a Motion from the United States Court of Appeals for

the Fourth Circuit because he previously filed such a motion in case

1:22CV293, which was denied by this Court. In any event, it is not clear how

the outcome of state charges that were allegedly dismissed after Plaintiff's

federal conviction could affect Plaintiffs federal case given that he pled guilty

to possessing a handgun following a felony conviction and that his girlfriend

testified at his sentencing that he mistook her for an intruder and shot her while

he was high on cocaine. (1:17CR394, Docket Entry 39 at 12-13.) Nothing

that occurred later regarding the state charges stemming from the shooting

could change or affect this. Finally, Plaintiff asks that the Court call and

interview him, but the Court does not conduct interviews. If Plaintiff can state

viable claims for relief, he must do so and he must clearly set out the facts

supporting those claims.

Consequently, the Complaint should be dismissed, but without prejudice to Plaintiff

filing anew complaint, on the proper § 1983 forms, which corrects the defects of the present

Complaint. To further aid Plaintiff, the Clerk is instructed to send Plaintiff new § 1983

forms, instructions, an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and a copy of pertinent parts

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (7.e., Sections (a) & (d)).

In forma pauperis status is granted for the sole purpose of entering this Order and

Recommendation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that in forma pauperis status is granted for the sole

purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation. The Clerk is instructed to send

_2-

Plaintiff § 1983 forms, instructions, an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and a copy

of pertinent parts of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (Ze., Sections (a) & (d)).

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed sua sponte without prejudice

to Plaintiff filing a new complaint, on the proper § 1983 forms, which corrects the defects

cited above.

This, the 7th day of February, 2024.

__/s/L. Patrick Auld

L. Patrick Auld

United States Magistrate Judge

-3-