a pleader must allege facts, directly or indirectly, that support each element of the claim
How later courts described this case
- a pleader must allege facts, directly or indirectly, that support each element of the claim
- conclusory allegations, unsupported by specific allegations of material fact are not sufficient
- to establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendants “acted personally” to cause the alleged violation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:23-cv-153-KDB
RAYMOND KEITH WRIGHT, II, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
ZACHARY BEARD, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on initial review of the pro se Complaint [Doc.
1]. The Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. [Doc. 6].
I. BACKGROUND
The pro se Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee at the Henderson County Detention Center
(HCDC) on a charge of felony conspiracy.1 The Plaintiff filed the instant action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. He names as Defendants: Zachary Beard, Michael Lolley, and Matthew Parce,
Henderson County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) detectives; as well as Colby Allman, Ryan Patton,
and James Hrom, and Monica B. Jernigan, whom he fails to identify. The Plaintiff asserts claims
for “14th amend violation slander/defame character; 8th amendment violation excessive bail of
300,000; 4th amend violation – unreasonable search & seizure; 14th amend violation malicious
prosecution/ false prisonment.” [Doc. 1 at 12] (errors uncorrected). He states his claims as follows:
Letter of Facts; An investigation was held from 1-5-22 to 6-30-22 in which
I am implicated as being involved in a continuing criminal enterprise. I am in none
of the activities throughout the report until the last part which states where I had an
altercation inside the county jail.
1 See Henderson County Superior Court Case No. 22CRS052550; Fed. R. Ev. 201.
[Id. at 12]. The Plaintiff does allege any injuries. [Id at 5]. He seeks $730,000 in damages. [Id. at
12].
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. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A.
In its frivolity review, this 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 the 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
by a “person” acting under color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999); Health & Hosp. Corp. of Marion Cnty. v. Talevski, 599 U.S.
__, 143 S.Ct. 1444 (2023).
The Plaintiff’s allegations are so vague and conclusory that they fail to satisfy the most
basic pleading requirements. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Simpson v. Welch, 900 F.2d 33, 35 (4th
Cir. 1990) (conclusory allegations, unsupported by specific allegations of material fact are not
sufficient); Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309 F.3d 193, 201-02 (4th Cir. 2002) (a pleader must allege
facts, directly or indirectly, that support each element of the claim). The Plaintiff fails to allege
how any Defendant violated his rights or injured him in any way; his vague allegations and his
citation to various legal theories are insufficient. See generally Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926,
928 (4th Cir. 1977) (to establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the
defendants “acted personally” to cause the alleged violation). Accordingly, the Complaint is
dismissed without prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails initial review
and it is dismissed.
The Court will allow Plaintiff thirty (30) days to amend his Complaint, if he so chooses, to
properly state a claim upon which relief can be granted in accordance with the terms of this Order.
Any Amended Complaint will be subject to all timeliness and procedural requirements and will
supersede the Complaint. Piecemeal amendment will not be permitted. Should Plaintiff fail to
timely amend his Complaint in accordance with this Order, the Court will dismiss this action
without further notice.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Complaint [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)G)-Gi) and 1915A.
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 so amend his
Complaint, the matter will be dismissed without further notice.
Signed: August 7, 2023
| Ae) [ie Ka 7 LD. a
Kenneth D. Bell Vy,
United States District Judge i f