when a district court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it “ordinarily dismiss[es] all related state claims.”
How later courts described this case
- when a district court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it “ordinarily dismiss[es] all related state claims.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:22-cv-642-RJC-DSC
DAMETRI DALE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
CRISHAWNA HAMMONDS, et al., ) ORDER
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of the pro se Complaint. [Doc. 1].
Also pending is Plaintiff’s “Motion for the Issuance and Service of Summons and Complaint….”
[Doc. 9]. The Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. [Doc. 5].
I. BACKGROUND
The pro se Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of North Carolina, filed this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 [Doc. 1]. He describes the issues in the case as: “United States
Constitution, right to life and liberty, fair trial, due process of law and protection of honour,
personal protection against abusive attacks on his reputation and his private and family life. 18
USC Ch. 79: perjury.” [Doc. 1 at 3]. He names as Defendants Chrishawna Hammonds and
Angelina Smith. [Id. at 2]. He appears to claim that the Defendants provided false information
and testimony about him, which resulted in his conviction and present incarceration. [Id. at 5-6].
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 “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii)
1 Construing the Complaint liberally, the Plaintiff also appears to assert a defamation claim under North Carolina law.
[Doc. 1 at 5].
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
(requiring frivolity review for prisoners’ civil actions seeking redress from governmental entities,
officers, or employees).
In its frivolity review, a court must determine whether a 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). In order to satisfy the state action requirement, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the
conduct at issue is “fairly attributable to the State.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922,
937 (1982). If the defendant is not a state actor, there must be a “sufficiently close relationship
with state actors such that a court would conclude that the non-state actor is engaged in the state’s
actions.” DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F.3d 499, 506 (4th Cir. 1999). For instance, a private entity’s
conduct is considered to be state action when the state has “coerced, or has provided ‘significant
encouragement’ to, a private actor, or there is ‘pervasive entwinement of public institutions and
public officials’ with a private entity….” Peltier v. Charter Day School, Inc., 37 F.4th 104, 115 (4th
Cir. 2022). The Plaintiff has named two private citizens as the Defendants in this § 1983 action.
He has failed to allege any theory under which the Defendants could be considered state actors
and he has, thus, failed to state a § 1983 claim against them.
Further, “a trial witness has absolute immunity with respect to any claim based on the
witness’ testimony.” Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 367 (2012); see also Briscoe v. LaHue, 460
U.S. 325, 332-33 (1983). Although the Complaint is far from a model of clarity, it appears that
some or all of the Plaintiff’s claims are related to the Defendants’ testimony at his criminal trial.
Any such claims are barred.2 The Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are thus subject to dismissal.
To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks relief under North Carolina law, the Court declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as no federal claim has passed initial review. See Artis v. Dist.
of Columbia, 138 S.Ct. 594, 595 (2018) (when a district court dismisses all claims independently
qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it “ordinarily dismiss[es] all related state
claims.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s North Carolina defamation claim is
dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s “Motion for the Issuance and Service of Summons and Complaint…” [Doc. 9]
will be denied as moot, as the Complaint has failed to pass initial review.
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, and the pending Motion is denied as moot.
The Court will allow the Plaintiff thirty (30) days to file a superseding Amended
Complaint, if he so chooses, to correct the deficiencies identified in this Order and to otherwise
properly state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Any Amended Complaint will be subject
2 Abstention principles also apply to any claims for damages that would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction
or sentence that has not been reversed or otherwise invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
to all timeliness and procedural requirements and will supersede the Plaintiffs prior filings.
Piecemeal amendment will not be allowed. Should the Plaintiff fail to timely file an Amended
Complaint in accordance with this Order, this action will be dismissed without prejudice and
without further notice to Plaintiff.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Complaint [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-Gy) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.
2. The Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to amend his Complaint in accordance
with the terms of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file a superseding Amended Complaint
in accordance with this Order and within the time limit set by the Court, this action will
be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff.
3. Plaintiffs “Motion for the Issuance and Service of Summons and Complaint....” [Doc.
9] is DENIED AS MOOT.
4. The Clerk of Court is respectfully instructed to mail the Plaintiff a blank § 1983
complaint form and a copy of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 25, 2023
Otef$ 4 Cr Of
Robert J. Conrad, Jr. as
United States District Judge ee