United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
D. Whitney Chief United States District Judge
MATTER is before the Court on initial review of
Plaintiff's Complaint, (Doc. No. 1). He has filed a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 4).
se Plaintiff Scott McCombs, Jr., filed a civil rights
Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his
medical needs were not being met at the Transylvania County
Detention Center. His current address of record is a private
residence in Brevard, North Carolina. He is not listed as an
inmate on the websites for either the North Carolina
Department of Public Safety or the Transylvania County
Sheriff's Office. He names as Defendants Transylvania
County Sheriff David Mahoney and Jail Nurse Bruce.
the allegations liberally and accepting them as true,
Plaintiff has been incarcerated at the Transylvania County
Detention Center since July 13, 2017, has requested his
seizure medication on several occasions, and has been denied
it despite providing proof of his need for the medication.
Staff has maliciously deprived him of the medication. He is
also experiencing a “very high level of anxiety”
and has requested a “more appropriate and suitable
housing transfer” within the facility and anxiety
medication. (Doc. No. 1 at 3). He believes that his
“many past issues” with the jail's
administration is contributing to his current issues. (Doc.
No. 1 at 4).
seeks medication, an immediate transfer out of the facility,
investigation of his claims by the Court, and remedies the
Court deems appropriate.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma
pauperis, the Court must review the Complaint to
determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds
that it is “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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). 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)).
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
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, he is no longer
incarcerated at the Transylvania County Detention Center and
appears to have been released. As a general rule, the
transfer or release of a prisoner from prison renders moot
the prisoner's claims for injunctive and declaratory
relief. Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 186
(4th Cir. 2009) (release from prison rendered moot
the plaintiffs request for injunctive and declaratory
relief); Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823
(4th Cir. 1991) (transfer of prisoner mooted
claims for injunctive and declaratory relief). Because
Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the Transylvania
County Detention Center, his claims for injunctive relief are
reasons stated herein, the Court will dismiss this action
without prejudice as moot.
IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
Plaintiffs Complaint, (Doc. No. 1), is