Rhinehardt v. Moore

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATESVILLE DIVISION

5:24-cv-97-FDW

TYREE RHINEHARDT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) ORDER

)

D.F. MOORE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

_____________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint

[Doc. 1]. Also pending are Plaintiff’s Motions Seeking Body Cam Footage1 [Docs. 3, 10,

11], “Motion Requesting Any Video Archives from Frye Hospital Mail Campus and GPS

Location of Officer Moore and Osmers’ Vehicles” [Doc. 4], and “Motion Requesting Service of

Summons be Made by a U.S. Marshal or Someone Specially Appointed” [Doc. 5]. The Plaintiff

is proceeding in forma pauperis. [Doc. 8].

I. BACKGROUND

The pro se Plaintiff filed this action while he was a pretrial detainee at the Catawba County

Detention Center, addressing incidents surrounding an involuntary civil commitment on April 19,

2021 involving several Hickory Police Department officers and a nurse at Frye Hospital.2 [Doc.

1]. His filing consists of three separate non-identical Complaint forms [Doc. 1 at 1-11 (prisoner

complaint form), id. at 12-17 (unsigned non-prisoner complaint form); id. at 18-28 (prisoner

1 Titled “Non-Dispositive Motion Seeking Body Cam Footage” and “Motion Requesting Body Cam Footage,”

respectively.

2 The Plaintiff’s address of record is now at an apartment complex. The Plaintiff is reminded to keep the Court apprised

of his current address at all times. [See April 5, 2024 Order of Instructions].

complaint form)], a handwritten document titled “Facts of Jurisdiction” [id. at 29-34], a letter to

the Clerk [Doc. 1-1 at 1-2], and a blank summons form [Doc. 1-2 at 1-2]. The Complaint forms

vary regarding inter alia: whether he is seeking to sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, § 1985 and/or

North Carolina law; whether he is suing the Defendants in their official capacities, individual

capacities, or both; the legal theories he is asserting; the injuries he allegedly sustained; the facts

underlying his claims; and the relief that he is seeking.

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 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 (2023).

A complaint must set forth a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); 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). To establish liability

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff “must affirmatively show that the official charged acted

personally in the deprivation of [his] rights.” Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 171 (4th Cir.

2018) (cleaned up); see Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977) (citation omitted).

Further, a plaintiff may not assert unrelated claims against unrelated defendants in a single action.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (noting

that “[u]nrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits,” to prevent prisoners

from dodging the fee payment or three-strikes provisions in the Prison Litigation Reform Act).

Here, Plaintiff’s “Complaint” consists of three inconsistent Complaint forms. The Court

cannot and will not blindly select which of these forms the Plaintiff might want to pursue in this

action. See Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (the courts are not

required to be “mind readers” or “advocates” for incarcerated or pro se litigants.). Piecemeal filings

will not be permitted. The Court declines to parse through Plaintiff’s allegations, identify all the

areas of inconsistency, and address other deficiencies in Plaintiff’s filing. The Complaint will,

therefore, be dismissed without prejudice and the Plaintiff will be required to file a single

superseding Amended Complaint that clearly sets forth his claims and which complies with all

applicable rules and procedural requirements.

The Plaintiff’s Motions seeking discovery and service of process are denied as premature,

as no claim has yet passed initial review. The Plaintiff is encouraged to review the Order of

Instructions in this case, and procedural rules including this Court’s Local Rules and the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, with which he is required to comply.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails initial review

and will be dismissed without prejudice. 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.3 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. The Plaintiff’s premature Motions seeking

discovery and service of process are denied.

ORDER

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:

1. The Complaint [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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, this case will be dismissed and closed without further notice.

3 Complaint forms are available on the Court’s website. See ncwd.uscourts.gov.

3. The Plaintiff's Motions Seeking Body Cam Footage [Docs. 3, 10, 11], Motion

Requesting Any Video Archives from Frye Hospital Mail Campus [Doc. 4] and

Motion Requesting Service of Summons [Doc. 5] are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: September 18, 2024

Frank D. Whitney é

United States District Judge Sg is