holding that in an official capacity suit, the entity’s “policy or custom” must have played a part in the violation of federal law
How later courts described this case
- holding that in an official capacity suit, the entity’s “policy or custom” must have played a part in the violation of federal law
- “Under North Carolina law, an action for conversion will lie against a public official who by an unauthorized act wrongfully deprives an owner of his property.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:21-cv-00063-MR
ONDRE HUNTER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
) ORDER
GARRY L. MCFADDEN, )
)
Defendant. )
___________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff
is proceeding in forma pauperis. [Docs. 2, 6].
I. BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Ondre Hunter (“Plaintiff”) is a pre-trial detainee currently
incarcerated at the Mecklenburg County Detention Center in Charlotte, North
Carolina. Plaintiff filed this action on February 9, 2021, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, against Defendant Garry L. McFadden, identified as the Sheriff of
Mecklenburg County, in his official capacity only. [Doc. 1 at 2]. Plaintiff
claims that his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution were violated on or around January 19, 2021, when he was
charged with vandalism and $100.00 was deducted from his prison account
for the damage he allegedly caused. [Id. at 5-6]. Plaintiff alleges that the
charging officer offered only circumstantial, and not “substantial,” evidence
against Plaintiff for the vandalism. [Id. at 6].
For relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. [Id. at
5].
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, § 1915A
requires an initial review of a “complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity,” and the court must identify cognizable claims or
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint 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 from 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).
III. DISCUSSION
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he was
“deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States,
and that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law.”
Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999). Plaintiff
claims that his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were
violated by the alleged conduct. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails initial review for
several reasons.
Plaintiff sues Defendant McFadden, the Sheriff of Mecklenburg
County, in his official capacity only. Suits against sheriffs in their official
capacity are in substance claims against the office of the sheriff itself. Gannt
v. Whitaker, 203 F.Supp.2d 503, 508 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 26, 2002). To succeed
on such a claim, Plaintiff must allege that a Sheriff’s Office policy or custom
resulted in the violation of federal law. See Monell v. New York City Dept. of
Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2037-38 (1978) (holding
that in an official capacity suit, the entity’s “policy or custom” must have
played a part in the violation of federal law); Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471
U.S. 808, 818-20, 105 S. Ct. 2427, 2433-34 (1985) (discussing same).
Plaintiff makes no such claim here. As such, Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim against Defendant McFadden in his official capacity.
Plaintiff’s claim would also fail if he had named Defendant McFadden
in his individual capacity. The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply
in actions brought under § 1983. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 694. Rather, to
establish liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendant
“acted personally” to cause the alleged violation. See Vinnedge v. Gibbs,
550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977) (citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff has not
alleged that McFadden acted personally, only that the unnamed “charging
officer” charged Plaintiff with vandalism without “substantial evidence.”
Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief in any event.
The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of
punishment and from inhumane conditions of confinement. Williams v.
Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761 (4th Cir. 1996). “Prison conditions may be harsh
and uncomfortable without violating the Eighth Amendment prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment.” Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640,
642 (7th Cir. 1997). Here, taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true and drawing
all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, Plaintiff has not stated a claim
under § 1983 for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff’s claim that
$100.00 was taken from his prison account in relation to a vandalism charge
simply does not fall within the protections of the Eighth Amendment.
As to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim, Plaintiff alleges that
money was taken from his prison account without due process. This claim
fails because Plaintiff has an adequate post-deprivation remedy in state tort
law. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (stating that
intentional deprivations of property do not violate the Due Process Clause if
a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for the loss is available); Wilkins v.
Whitaker, 714 F.2d 4, 6 (4th Cir. 1983) (“Under North Carolina law, an action
for conversion will lie against a public official who by an unauthorized act
wrongfully deprives an owner of his property.”). Plaintiff may bring his claim
for the deprivation of his $100.00 in state court. As such, Plaintiff has also
failed to state a claim for relief under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court will, therefore, dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on initial review
with prejudice because amendment would be futile.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1] is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim.
The Clerk is respectfully instructed to terminate this action.
ITIS SO ORDERED. Signed: March 16, 2021
ee as
Chief United States District Judge WG