Holcomb

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

ASHEVILLE DIVISION

CIVIL CASE NOS.:

1:25-cv-00285-MR

1:25-cv-00310-MR

1:25-cv-00311-MR

1:25-cv-00313-MR

1:25-cv-00321-MR

1:25-cv-00322-MR

1:25-cv-00323-MR

1:25-cv-00324-MR

1:25-cv-00325-MR

1:25-cv-00326-MR

)

)

) MEMORANDUM OF

IN RE HOLCOMB, ) DECISION AND ORDER

)

)

_______________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on review of the dockets in the

above-captioned matters, Plaintiff’s “Motion(s) to Dismiss Without Prejudice”

[Case Nos. -285, Doc. 16; -310, Doc. 7; -311, Doc. 6; -313, Doc. 6; -321,

Doc. 5; -322, Doc. 5; -323, Doc. 5; -324, Doc. 5; -325, Doc. 5; and -326, Doc.

5], and on Plaintiff’s pending motions in Case No. -285 [Docs. 5, 11, 13, 14].

I. DISMISSAL OF THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CASES

Since August 27, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Dean Alton Holcomb

(“Plaintiff”), a North Carolina pretrial detainee,1 has filed nineteen (19) civil

actions in this Court.2 Plaintiff’s Complaints in the above-captioned cases

contain allegations of inter alia the thwarting of legal research regarding

kosher meal standards; Plaintiff’s bipolar crisis and his sister’s involvement

in and his knowledge of a “child porn ring” operating in Brevard, North

Carolina; the medication schedule at the Jail and the conditions of Plaintiff’s

confinement due to bipolar incidents; Plaintiff’s disciplinary charges and the

1 Although Plaintiff’s address of record in this matter reflects that he is detained at the

Transylvania County Detention Center (“TCDC”) in Brevard, North Carolina, his more

recent filings reflect that he has been transferred to Central Prison in Raleigh, North

Carolina. [Doc. 9-1; see 9/29/2025 Text-Only Notice].

2 Holcomb v. Rodriguez, 1:25-cv-00285-MR (W.D.N.C.), Doc. 1; Holcomb v. McCall, 1:25-

cv-00310-MR (W.D.N.C.), Doc. 1; Holcomb v. McCall, 1:25-cv-00311-MR (W.D.N.C.),

Doc. 1; Holcomb v. Transylvania Cnty. Sherrif’s Office, 1:25-cv-00313 (W.D.N.C.), Doc.

1; Holcomb v. Freeman, 1:25-cv-00321 (W.D.N.C.), Doc. 1; Holcomb v. McCall, 1:25-cv-

00322-MR (W.D.N.C.), Doc. 1; Holcomb v. McCall, 1:25-cv-00323-MR (W.D.N.C.), Doc.

1; Holcomb v. Vacher, 1:25-cv-00324-MR (W.D.N.C.), Doc. 1; Holcomb v. Transylvania

Cnty. Sherrif’s Office, 1:25-cv-00325-MR (W.D.N.C.), Doc. 1; Holcomb v. Transylvania

Cnty. Detention Center, 1:25-cv-00326-MR (W.D.N.C.), Doc. 1; Holcomb v. State of North

Carolina, 1:25-cv-00332-MR (W.D.N.C.), Doc. 1; Holcomb v. Brown, 1:15-cv-00333

(W.D.N.C.), Doc. 1; Holcomb v. Transylvania Cnty. Clerk of Court, 1:25-cv-00342

(W.D.N.C.), Doc. 1; Holcomb v. State of North Carolina, 1:25-cv-00356-MR (W.D.N.C.),

Doc. 1; Holcomb v. Transylvania Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 1:25-cv-00343-MR, Doc. 1;

Holcomb v. Transylvania Cnty. Detention Center, 1:25-cv-00357-MR, Doc. 1; Holcomb v.

Brown, 1:25-cv-00358-MR (W.D.N.C.), Doc. 1; Holcomb v. State of North Carolina, 1:25-

cv-00374-MR (W.D.N.C.), Doc. 1; Holcomb v. State of North Carolina, 1:25-cv-00386-MR

(W.D.N.C.)]. Additionally, on October 2, 2025, Plaintiff also filed an action that has been

construed as a petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Case No. 1:25-cv-00341-MR,

Doc. 1]. This petition is not included in Plaintiff’s case count here.

related disciplinary hearing process; false imprisonment; denial of Plaintiff’s

“right to eat with the Gentiles;” denial of sufficient paper and interference with

the legal process, and mail interference, all while at the Jail. [See id.].

Plaintiff now moves to dismiss Case Nos. -285, -310, -311, -313, -321,

-322, -323, -324, -325, and -326 without prejudice. [Case Nos. -285, Doc.

16; -310, Doc. 7; -311, Doc. 6; -313, Doc. 6; -321, Doc. 5; -322, Doc. 5; -323,

Doc. 5; -324, Doc. 5; -325, Doc. 5; and -326, Doc. 5]. As grounds, Plaintiff

states that he has limited access to paper and that he has been transferred

to Central Prison where his access to legal research is more limited. [Id.].

Although Plaintiff does not need leave of Court to dismiss these cases, the

Court will nonetheless grant Plaintiff’s motion and order that these cases be

dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Court

will deny the pending motions in Case No. -285 as moot.

Additionally, on September 29, 2025, the Clerk received mail in Case

No. -310 with a return address not matching Plaintiff’s address of record in

the above-captioned actions. [Case No. -310, Doc. 3-1]. The Clerk,

therefore, entered a Notice in all the above-captioned cases instructing the

Plaintiff that he must notify the Clerk of any changes to his address within 14

days of the Notice and that the failure to do so may result in the dismissal of

these actions. [See, e.g., id., 9/29/2025 Text-Only Notice]. The deadline

has passed, and the Plaintiff has not notified the Court of his new address.

The above-captioned actions, therefore, would also be subject to dismissal

on this ground.

II. PREFILING REVIEW SYSTEM

On September 29, 2025, the Court entered an Order in the above-

captioned actions directing the Plaintiff to show cause why a pre-filing review

system should not be imposed. [See, e.g., Case No. -285, Doc. 7].

In response to the Show Cause Order, the Plaintiff repeatedly maligns

the undersigned and threatens to “weaponize public outrage and flood [this]

court with pro se filings,” and he fails to articulate any cogent reason why a

pre-filing review system should not be imposed. [See, e.g., id., Doc. 9]. For

this reason, and for all the reasons set forth in the Court’s prior Order [id.,

Doc. 7], the Court will direct that all documents submitted by the Plaintiff in

the future will be pre-screened by the Court for content. Any proposed filings

that are not made in good faith or which lack substance or merit will be

returned to the Plaintiff without further explanation. See Foley v. Fix, 106

F.3d 556, 558 (4th Cir. 1997). Such a review system “will allow Plaintiff to

have access to the Courts for his legitimate concerns, but will prevent him

from usurping the Court’s resources with his baseless submissions.”

Vandyke v. Francis, No. 1:12-cv-128-RJC, 2012 WL 2576747, at *3

(W.D.N.C. July 3, 2012). Thereafter, if such writings persist, the pre-filing

system may be modified to include an injunction from filings. In re Martin-

Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1262 (2d Cir. 1984).

III. CONCLUSION

In sum, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Case Nos.

Case Nos. -285, -310, -311, -313, -321, -322, -323, -324, -325, and -326

without prejudice and order that a pre-filing review system be imposed.

ORDER

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that a pre-filing review system is

hereby imposed, and all documents submitted by the Plaintiff in the future,

whether in the above-captioned cases or in any other action filed in this

District, will be pre-screened by the Court for content. Any proposed filings

that are not made in good faith or which lack substance or merit will be

returned to the Plaintiff without further explanation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Dismiss [Case

Nos. -285, Doc. 16; -310, Doc. 7; -311, Doc. 6; -313, Doc. 6; -321, Doc. 5; -

322, Doc. 5; -323, Doc. 5; -324, Doc. 5; -325, Doc. 5; and -326, Doc. 5] are

GRANTED and these actions are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending motions in Case No. -

285 [Docs. 5, 11, 13, 14] are DENIED as moot.

The Clerk is respectfully instructed to docket this Order in every case

listed in the caption of this Order and to note the pre-filing review system in

Plaintiff's filer status report.

The Clerk is respectfully instructed to close the above-captioned civil

cases.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: November 13, 2025

Martifi Reidinger ee

Chief United States District Judge “AES