The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:20-cv-00296-MR
KAYIE SHAUNE D. WRIGHT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
THOMAS A. HAMILTON, )
)
Defendant. )
________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s
Complaint [Doc. 1], filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)
and 1915A. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. [Docs. 2, 8].
I. BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Kayie Shaune D. Wright (“Plaintiff”) is a North Carolina
state inmate currently incarcerated at Tabor Correctional Institution (“Tabor
CI”) in Tabor City, North Carolina. He filed this action on October 13, 2020,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming Thomas Hamilton, identified as the
Unit Manager of E-Unit at Marion Correctional Institution, as the sole
Defendant. [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff alleges that, on June 5, 2019 at approximately
9:00 a.m., while Plaintiff was in full restraints, Plaintiff was escorted by
Defendant Hamilton from the shower area to a cell. While inside the cell but
before Hamilton secured it and while Plaintiff remained in full restraints,
Plaintiff faced the door, “being of no ‘aggressive state.’” Defendant Hamilton
then sprayed Plaintiff’s facial area with O.C. pepper spray, even though
Plaintiff was “not in any way attempting to cause harm” nor was it necessary
to restore discipline. [Doc. 1 at 3, 4]. This caused Plaintiff a “fear of well
being injury and emotional distress immediately.” [Id. at 3]. Plaintiff was
escorted to the shower for decontamination. He remained in restraints and
in his clothing while placed in the shower, which caused the pepper spray to
“expand[ ] (with connection of water!) over [his] body” causing his “facial area
to [his] feet to ‘burn’ of heating of O.C. pepper spray with abnormal
breathing.” [Id. at 4]. Plaintiff further alleges that no medical assessment
was provided and that he, therefore sought protective custody, which
Defendant Hamilton denied. [Id.].
Plaintiff claims he suffered physical injury and is currently being treated
for depression due to the alleged used of excessive force. [Id. at 4]. Plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and costs.
[Id.].
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must
review the Complaint to determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the
grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Furthermore, under § 1915A
the Court must conduct an initial review and identify and dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune to such relief.
In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint
raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly
baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). Furthermore, a pro se
complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit a
district court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in his Complaint which
set forth a claim that is cognizable under federal law. Weller v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
III. DISCUSSION
“To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the
violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States
and must show that the deprivation of that right was committed by a person
acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of “cruel and unusual
punishments,” U.S. CONST. amend. VIII, and protects prisoners from the
“unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312,
319 (1986). To establish an Eighth Amendment claim, an inmate must
satisfy both an objective component–that the harm inflicted was sufficiently
serious–and a subjective component–that the prison official acted with a
sufficiently culpable state of mind. Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761
(4th Cir. 1996). In adjudicating an excessive force claim, the Court must
consider such factors as the need for the use of force, the relationship
between that need and the amount of force used, the extent of the injury
inflicted, and, ultimately, whether the force was “applied in a good faith effort
to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically for the very
purpose of causing harm.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320-21.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made clear that “[a]n inmate who
is gratuitously beaten by guards does not lose his ability to pursue an
excessive force claim merely because he has the good fortune to escape
without serious injury.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130 S. Ct. 1175, 1178-79 (2010).
Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true for the purposes of this initial
review and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, Plaintiff states an
Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Hamilton.
Finally, however, because Plaintiff has been transferred from Marion
to Tabor CI, Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are moot and will be
dismissed. Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 286-87 (4th Cir. 2007).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff’s
Complaint against Defendant Hamilton for violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment rights survives initial review.
ORDER
Local Rule 4.3 sets forth a procedure to waive service of process for
current and former employees of the North Carolina Department of Public
Safety (“NCDPS”) in actions filed by North Carolina State prisoners. In light
of the Court’s determination that this case passes initial review, the Court will
order the Clerk of Court to commence the procedure for waiver of service as
set forth in Local Civil Rule 4.3 for Defendant Hamilton, who is alleged to be
a current or former employee of NCDPS.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Clerk of Court shall commence
the procedure for waiver of service as set forth in Local Civil Rule 4.3 for
Defendant Hamilton, who is alleged to be a current or former employee of
NCDPS.
IT IS SO ORDERED. .
Signed: December 7, 2020
ee wg
Chief United States District Judge WG