The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:22-cv-00059-MR
BRYAN KEITH HALL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
) ORDER
)
B. SETSER, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s
Complaint, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. 1]. See 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2); 1915A. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. [Docs. 2, 7].
I. BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Bryan Keith Hall (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner of the State of
North Carolina currently incarcerated at Mountain View Correctional
Institution in Spruce Pine, North Carolina. On March 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants B. Setser,
identified as a Sergeant at Foothills Correctional Institution (“Foothills”); and
B. Trivette, Samuel Poole, and Ethan Magnum, identified as a Correctional
Officers at Foothills, all in their individual and official capacities. [Doc. 1].
Plaintiff alleges that, on May 14, 2020, at Foothills Minimum Custody Unit,
Defendants assaulted Plaintiff while he was restrained in handcuffs. Plaintiff
alleges that he was knocked unconscious during the assault and that he
suffered a broken nose requiring reconstructive surgery, as well as a
hematoma on his forehead, a badly bruised shoulder, and a concussion.
Although not identified by Plaintiff, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s claim
under the Eighth Amendment.
For relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages. [Id. at 5].
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must review Plaintiff’s 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
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 § 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).
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.
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 Defendants in their individual capacities.
Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants in their official capacities, however,
will be dismissed. “[A] suit against a state official in his or her official capacity
is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official’s office.”
Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Because a state
is not a “person” under § 1983, state officials acting in their official capacities
cannot be sued for damages thereunder. Allen v. Cooper, No. 1:19-cv-794,
2019 WL 6255220, at *2 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 22, 2019). Furthermore, the
Eleventh Amendment bars suits for monetary damages against the State of
North Carolina and its various agencies. See Ballenger v. Owens, 352 F.3d
842, 844-45 (4th Cir. 2003). As such, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for
relief against Defendants in their official capacities and these claims will be
dismissed.
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendants in their
individual capacities survives initial review. Plaintiff’s claim against
Defendants in their official capacities does not and will be dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
excessive force claim against all Defendants in their individual capacities
passes initial review.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
excessive force claim against Defendants in their official capacities is hereby
DISMISSED.
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 all
Defendants, who are alleged to be current or former employees of the North
Carolina Department of Public Safety.
The Clerk is also instructed to mail Plaintiff an Opt-In/Opt-Out form
pursuant to Standing Order 3:19-mc-00060-FDW.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: April 1, 2022
Martiff Reidinger ey
Chief United States District Judge MES