The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:22-cv-00114-MR
AUSTIN REID PITTMAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
) ORDER
)
FNU SIGMON, )
)
Defendant. )
___________________________ )
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, 6].
I. BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Austin Reid Pittman (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner of the State
of North Carolina currently incarcerated at Granville Correctional Institution
in Butner, North Carolina. On August 19, 2022, he filed this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant FNU Sigmon, identified as a Unit
Manager at Alexander Correctional Institution (“Alexander”). Plaintiff alleges
that, on April 10th at approximately 8:00 a.m., he was placed in full restraints,
including handcuffs behind his back, a waist chain, and leg cuffs, after
requesting a bottle of pills to commit suicide. [Doc. 1 at 2]. Plaintiff was on
suicide watch and wearing a “suicide smock” at the time. He was placed in
a wheelchair and wheeled to inmate receiving by Defendant Sigmon and two
other officers. When Plaintiff and the officers reached the inmate dining hall,
which was empty, someone pushed down on the back of Plaintiff’s neck,
presumably to get Plaintiff to stop talking. [Id. at 2-3]. The pressure on
Plaintiff’s neck was painful, so he stood up “in hopes [of getting] the attention
of the [officer in charge]” to diffuse the situation. Even though Plaintiff faced
the wall and made no movement toward any staff, Defendant Sigmon
ordered that Plaintiff be taken to the ground. [Id. at 3]. Officers Smith and
Wagner brought Plaintiff to the floor, with the right side of Plaintiff’s face
against the ground. Defendant Sigmon then walked over to where Plaintiff
was laying, “kneel[ed] down by [Plaintiff’s] face, dr[ew] his knee back and
smashed it into [Plaintiff’s] mouth and nose.” Plaintiff’s mouth and nose
“began to pour blood.” [Id. at 4].
For injuries, Plaintiff claims physical injury to his nose and upper lip
and “P.T.S.D. in the form of extreme anxiety.” [Id. at 6]. For relief, Plaintiff
seeks compensatory and punitive damages. [Id. at 7].
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 Defendant Sigmon in his individual
capacity. To the extent Plaintiff sought to name Defendant Sigmon in his
official capacity, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief.1
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant Sigmon
survives initial review.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
excessive force claim against Defendant Sigmon in his individual capacity
passes initial review.
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 Sigmon, who is alleged to be a current or former employee 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.
1 “[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. Michigan Dept. 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 26, 2022
5 a at
Reidinger ey
Chief United States District Judge AES