# Rivers v. Iredell County

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · August 20, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10654062

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** August 20, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10654062

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:24-cv-00154-GCM

MAURICE D. RIVERS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
) ORDER
)
IREDELL COUNTY, )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)

THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e) [Doc. 1], Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel [Docs.
4, 6], and Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order [Doc.
5]. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. [Docs. 2, 9].
I. BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Maurice D. Rivers (“Plaintiff”) is a pretrial detainee currently housed at
the Iredell County Jail in Statesville, North Carolina. He filed this action on June 24, 2024,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendant Iredell County. [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff alleges that,
between February 11, 2024 and June 15, 2024, he was indicted twice in Iredell County “on the
exact same offence and issued two seperate court dates and two seperate bond amounts,” which
are excessive. [Id. at 4-5 (errors uncorrected); see Doc. 1-1 at 3]. Plaintiff purports to state
claims under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as Article 1, Section
27 of the North Carolina Constitution, which prohibits excessive bail. [Id. at 3]. He claims
various emotional injuries and lost income. [Id. at 5]. For relief, Plaintiff seeks dismissal of all
charges and $1 million “for emotional damages and loss of wages.” [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). Plaintiff’s Complaint fails initial review.
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief against Defendant Iredell County in the first
place. Local governing bodies “can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or
injunctive relief where ... the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes
a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that
body's officers.” Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978); see Mt. Healthy
City Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 (1977) (Eleventh Amendment immunity
“does not extend to counties or similar municipal corporations.”). Municipal liability under §

1983 cannot be predicated upon a respondeat superior theory. Burgess v. Goldstein, 997 F.3d
541, 562 (4th Cir. 2021). Liability arises only when the offensive acts are taken in furtherance of
municipal policy or custom. Id.; see City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389 (1989) (a
municipality can be liable under § 1983 only where its policies are the “moving force” behind
the constitutional violation) (quoting Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 326 (1981)). Here,
Plaintiff has failed to allege that any acts were taken in furtherance of a municipal policy or
custom. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief against Defendant Iredell County and
the Court will dismiss this Defendant.
Moreover, it also appears that Plaintiff remains detained related to the alleged charges. In

Younger v. Harris, the Supreme Court held that a federal court should not interfere with state
criminal proceedings except in the most narrow and extraordinary of circumstances. 401 U.S.
37, 43-44 (1971). Under the Younger abstention doctrine, abstention is proper in federal court
when (1) there is an ongoing state court proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state
interests; and (3) the plaintiff has an adequate opportunity to present the federal claims in the
state proceeding. Emp’rs Res. Mgmt. Co. v. Shannon, 65 F.3d 1126, 1134 (4th Cir. 1995).
Here, given that Plaintiff remains detained and that it appears that the state court proceeding is
ongoing, the Court must abstain from interfering in the ongoing state proceedings. The Court,
therefore, will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to state a
claim for relief. The Court, therefore, will also deny Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive
relief because Plaintiff has plainly failed to show likelihood of success on the merits. See Real
Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 575 F.3d 342, 346 (4th Cir. 2009)
The Court, however, will allow Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to show why his
Complaint is not precluded under Younger and to otherwise state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, if the facts support such amendment. Plaintiff is admonished that this Court has no
authority under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to order that his state charges be dismissed.
IV. PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Also pending are Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel. [Docs. 4, 6]. There is
no absolute right to the appointment of counsel in civil actions such as this one. Therefore, a
plaintiff must present “exceptional circumstances” in order to require the Court to seek the
assistance of a private attorney for a plaintiff who is unable to afford counsel. Miller v.
Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987). The existence of exceptional circumstances in
each case “hinges on characteristics of the claim and the litigant.” Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d

160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984). To make this determination, a court must collectively assess “(1)
whether the plaintiff asserts a claim that is not frivolous, (2) the difficulty of the claim, and (3)
whether the plaintiff can present the claim considering the skill required to do so and the
plaintiff’s individual abilities.” Jenkins v. Woodard, 109 F.4th 242, 248 (4th Cir. 2024) (citing
Brock v. City of Richmond, 983 F.2d 1055, 1055 (4th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)). “The district
court’s failure to make these assessments is legal error.” Id. Where a pro se plaintiff presents a
colorable claim but “lacks the capacity to present it” in light of the objective complexity of the
claim and the plaintiff’s subjective abilities, the case presents “exceptional circumstances.” Id. at
247 (quoting Whisenant, 739 F.2d at 162).
In this case, however, the Plaintiff has not yet even demonstrated that this claim will pass
initial review, much less that it has potential merit. Until that has been shown, the Court cannot
assess the complexity of the claim or what skill may be required to prosecute the same.
Therefore, at this stage, the Plaintiff has failed to meet any of the requirements for establishing
exceptional circumstances necessitating the appointment of counsel.

V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails initial
review. 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 prejudice.
ORDER

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails initial review under
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B) for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim for relief and
shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in accordance with the terms of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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 prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Iredell County is DISMISSED as a
Defendant in this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions [Docs. 4, 5, 6] are DENIED.
The Clerk is respectfully instructed to mail Plaintiff a blank prisoner § 1983 form.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: August 20, 2024
Lbal
Graham C. Mullen
United States District Judge “ee

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10654062. Public record. Not legal advice.