United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
D. Whitney Chief United States District Judge.
MATTER is before the Court on initial review of
Plaintiff's Complaint, (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 6).
se Plaintiff Ronald McClary has filed a civil rights
suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the following
Defendants who are all employed at the Lanesboro Correctional
Institution: Superintendent David Mitchell; Nurse Belquis
Hopkins; and Doctor Anthony Searles.
the Complaint liberally and accepting the allegations as
true, Plaintiff appears to allege that he suffers from a
number of medical conditions including an enlarged prostate,
bad back, and high blood pressure, of which the Defendants
were aware, and which they failed to treat. Plaintiff seeks
punitive damages for Defendants' alleged deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“court shall dismiss [a prisoner's] case at any
time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal
... fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A
complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a
claim “unless ‘after accepting all well-pleaded
allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true and
drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in
the plaintiff's favor, it appears certain that the
plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his
claim entitling him to relief.'” Veney v.
Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th
Cir. 1999)). In its frivolity review, a 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).
pro se complaint must be construed liberally.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); see
also Smith v. Smith, 589 F.3d 736, 738 (4th
Cir. 2009) (“Liberal construction of the pleadings is
particularly appropriate where … there is a pro se
complaint raising civil rights issues.”). 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). A pro se complaint must
still contain sufficient facts “to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level” and “state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570
(2007); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)
(the Twombly plausibility standard applies to all
federal civil complaints including those filed under §
1983). This “plausibility standard requires a plaintiff
to demonstrate more than a sheer possibility that a defendant
has acted unlawfully.” Francis v. Giacomelli,
588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted). He must articulate facts that, when accepted as
true, demonstrate he has stated a claim entitling him to
acknowledges in his Complaint that his claims were
“[f]iled in previous same action on file with the
court.” (Doc. No. 1 at 5). A review of the Court's
records reveals that Plaintiff has, indeed, made
substantially the same claims against the same three
Defendants in an earlier-filed § 1983 case that is still
pending before the Court, case number
3:16-cv-88-FDW.Because this action is duplicative of
another earlier-filed pending action, it will be dismissed
without prejudice. Plaintiff may move to amend the Complaint
in the other pending action if he wishes to add claims or
defendants in that action.
reasons stated herein, the Court will dismiss this action
without prejudice because Plaintiff brought substantially the
same claims in an earlier action that is still pending.