The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:24-cv-00119-MR
AJANAKU MURDOCK, )
)
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) ORDER
)
)
FNU MOORE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint [Doc. 7] filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this
matter. [Docs. 2, 4].
I. BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Ajanaku Murdock (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner of the State
of North Carolina currently incarcerated at Central Prison in Raleigh, North
Carolina. On May 10, 2024, he filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
naming FNU Moore, FNU Curtis, FNU Adkins, and FNU Baers, all identified
as Correctional Officers at Alexander Correctional Institution (“Alexander”),
as Defendants. [Doc. 1]. In his Complaint, Plaintiff sought relief for two
unrelated incidents by two separate sets of Defendants that Plaintiff alleged
occurred while he was incarcerated at Alexander Correctional Institution
(“Alexander”) in Taylorsville, North Carolina. [See id.]. The Court dismissed
Plaintiff’s Complaint on initial review, in part, because Plaintiff sought to
assert unrelated claims against unrelated Defendants in a single action.
[Doc. 6 at 5-6, 8]. The Court allowed Plaintiff 30 days to amend his Complaint
to correct the deficiencies identified by the Court. [Id. at 8].
Now pending is Plaintiff’s timely Amended Complaint. [Doc. 7].
Plaintiff now names only FNU Moore and FNU Curtis as Defendants in this
matter in their individual and official capacities.1 Plaintiff alleges as follows.
On March 7, 2023, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Defendants Moore and Curtis
were taking Plaintiff “out of the block” and Defendant Moore threw the
property from Plaintiff’s pockets on the floor. Defendants Moore and Curtis
cursed at the Plaintiff and Plaintiff cursed back at Defendant Curtis. “[T]he
whole way down” the hall, Defendants assaulted Plaintiff by jerking his arms,
“bending [his] hands, cuffs, [and] wrists.” [Id. at 12]. Plaintiff was not
provoking the Defendants when this occurred. [Id. at 5]. A Sergeant who
was nearby noticed what was happening and intervened. [Id. at 12]. A
Captain, who was on shift, saw what happened and issued an incident report.
1 Plaintiff has filed a second action pursuing his claim(s) against Defendants Adkins,
Baers, Sigmon, and Emig. [Case No. 5:24-cv-00163-KDB, Doc. 1].
[Id. at 5]. Plaintiff was afraid to say what really occurred out of fear of
retaliation “because they have a history of retaliation at that camp.” [Id. at
5].
Plaintiff claims that Defendants Moore and Curtis violated his rights
under the Eighth Amendment. [Id.]. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered injuries
to his hand, wrist, and arm, as well as mental and emotional distress. Plaintiff
seeks monetary relief. [Id.].
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, 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, § 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.
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 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. 166, 143 S.Ct. 1444 (2023).
A. Official Capacity Claims
“[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, as noted
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). Plaintiff’s official capacity claims, therefore,
do not survive initial review and will be dismissed.
B. Eighth Amendment
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.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made clear that “[a]n inmate who
is gratuitously beaten by guards does not lose his ability to pursue an
excessive force claim merely because he has the good fortune to escape
without serious injury.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 38 (2010).
Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true and giving him the benefit of every
reasonable inference, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim
against Defendants Moore and Curtis in their individual capacities is not
clearly frivolous and survives initial review.
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, the Complaint survives initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e) and 1915A in accordance with the terms of this Order.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
excessive force claim against Defendants in their individual capacities
passes initial review in accordance with the terms of this Order. Any
remaining claims, including Plaintiff’s official capacity claims, are
DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim for relief. 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e) and 1915A.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall commence
the procedure for waiver of service as set forth in Local Civil Rule 4.3 for
Defendants FNU Moore and FNU Curtis, who are alleged to be current or
former employees of North Carolina Department of Adult Correction.
The Clerk is also instructed to mail Plaintiff an Opt-In/Opt-Out form
pursuant to Standing Order 3:19-mc-00060-FDW.
IT 1S SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 30, 2024
if
< Reidinger wey
Chief United States District Judge “AES