“Standing to sue is part of the common understanding of what it takes to make a justiciable case.”
How later courts described this case
- “Standing to sue is part of the common understanding of what it takes to make a justiciable case.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:22-cv-00152-MR
TERRY LANEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
THE SHERIFF, )
)
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)(2)
and 1915A, and Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel [Doc. 2]. Plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis. [Docs. 2, 7].
I. BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Terry Laney (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner of the State of
North Carolina currently incarcerated at Tabor Correctional Institution in
Tabor City, North Carolina. He filed this action on April 8, 2022 pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant “The Sheriff” in his/her official capacity
on behalf of his deceased sister, Francine Laney. [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff alleges
that Ms. Laney’s rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were
violated by deliberate indifference to her medical needs while she was
housed at the Mecklenburg County Jail in Charlotte, North Carolina, and the
“denial of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.” [Id. at 3-4].
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that his sister died on March 3, 2022 at the Jail
infirmary due to understaffing and inadequate medical care and that he is
waiting on the cause of death now. [Id. at 5]. Plaintiff, however, does not
allege that he has been appointed the personal representative of Ms. Laney’s
estate. For relief, Plaintiff seeks “no less than $2,000,000.” [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).
However, “[s]imply being a relative of a deceased person does not give one
standing to bring a Section 1983 lawsuit….” Boston v. Davis, No.
3:11CV450, 2011 WL 6935710, at *3 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 29, 2011). “Federal
courts are to apply state law in deciding who may bring a § 1983 action on a
decedent’s behalf.” Williams v. Bradshaw, 459 F.3d 846, 848 (8th Cir. 2006)
(citations omitted). Under North Carolina law, the duly appointed personal
representative of the decedent’s estate may bring claims on behalf of the
beneficiaries of the estate. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-18-2(a). Thus, “[t]o have
standing to bring this Section 1983 action, which is in the nature of a wrongful
death action, plaintiff must first be qualified and appointed under North
Carolina law as the administrat[or] of the estate of the deceased and then
must bring the action in [his] capacity as administrat[or] of the estate rather
in [his] individual capacity.” Boston, 2011 WL 6935710, at *3.
Plaintiff here has not alleged that he is the personal representative of
his deceased sister’s estate nor could Plaintiff carry out the functions of a
personal representative while incarcerated, in any event. Thus, Plaintiff
lacks standing to bring this action and the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear it
as presented. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S.
83, 102 (1998) (“Standing to sue is part of the common understanding of
what it takes to make a justiciable case.”). Because allowing Plaintiff to
amend his Complaint would, under the circumstances, be futile, the Court
will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice to the appropriate action
being brought by the duly appointed personal representative of Ms. Laney’s
estate. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel as moot.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s
Complaint fails initial review and will be dismissed without prejudice in
accordance with the terms of this Order.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1] is
DISMISSED without prejudice in accordance with the terms of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel
[Doc. 3] is DENIED as moot.
The Clerk is respectfully instructed to terminate this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: April 26, 2022
Martifi Reidinger Py
Chief United States District Judge AMES